VSIG charter status update

13 Jul 2015
Groups audience: 

Hi all,

TAB has provided very positive feedback on the charter proposal and suggested a few minor updates and that we re-submit.

One suggestion was that we record the roles our participants are involved with in the lifecycle of publishing/consuming controlled vocabularies.

We have identified the following roles: creator, maintainer, publisher, user

If you are listed in the active participants table please let us know which of these roles you expect to, or have been be involved with. If we missed any role types please let us know and we will include that in the table.

Also, we have some new members since the last charter submission and notification so if you would like to be included in the active participant table on the revised charter please let us know by sending us the following information

Name:
Email:
Organization:
Title:
Field / Area of Interest:
Role: (select all that apply, add your own type if needed)
- creator
- maintainer
- publisher
- user

Thank You

Stephan Zednik
zednis2@rpi.edu

  • Mike Brown's picture

    Author: Mike Brown

    Date: 13 Jul, 2015

    Hi Stephan

    Name: Mike Brown
    Email: mjbr@ceh.ac.uk
    Organization: Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
    Title: Head of Application Development
    Field / Area of Interest: Linking Environmental monitoring and observational data
    Role: (select all that apply, add your own type if needed)
    -
    - maintainer
    - publisher
    - user
    - Facilitate creation

    Regards

    Mike

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: zednis2=rpi.edu@rda-groups.org [mailto:zednis2=rpi.edu@rda-
    >groups.org] On Behalf Of zednik
    >Sent: 13 July 2015 15:51
    >To: vocabulary_services@rda-groups.org
    >Subject: [vocabulary_services] VSIG charter status update
    >
    >Hi all,
    >
    >TAB has provided very positive feedback on the charter proposal and
    >suggested a few minor updates and that we re-submit.
    >
    >One suggestion was that we record the roles our participants are involved
    >with in the lifecycle of publishing/consuming controlled vocabularies.
    >
    >We have identified the following roles: creator, maintainer, publisher, user
    >
    >If you are listed in the active participants table please let us know which of
    >these roles you expect to, or have been be involved with. If we missed any
    >role types please let us know and we will include that in the table.
    >
    >Also, we have some new members since the last charter submission and
    >notification so if you would like to be included in the active participant table on
    >the revised charter please let us know by sending us the following information
    >
    >Name:
    >Email:
    >Organization:
    >Title:
    >Field / Area of Interest:
    >Role: (select all that apply, add your own type if needed)
    >- creator
    >- maintainer
    >- publisher
    >- user
    >
    >Thank You
    >
    >Stephan Zednik
    >zednis2@rpi.edu
    ________________________________
    This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
    ________________________________

  • Arthur Smith's picture

    Author: Arthur Smith

    Date: 13 Jul, 2015

    I believe I am already in the participants table. As far as roles, it
    depends:
    * creator & maintainer (for a new controlled vocabulary for physics we
    are close to releasing)
    * user - (of PACS, CODATA constants, elements/isotopes?, orgref
    institutions list)

    I actually had just been thinking of posting a question to this group
    anyway...

    It has seemed to me recently there's a lot of overlap or maybe
    synchronicity between persistent identifiers and controlled
    vocabularies. Each provides a way to authoritatively link together
    digital items through a common factor (the DOI of a reference, subject
    keywords, ORCID of a researcher). Authority files like OCLC's VIAF are
    basically large controlled vocabularies for people, places,
    institutions, etc to which is usually also tied an identifier. ISNI I
    think mostly derived from the OCLC data as a name authority list that
    has evolved into an individual/institutional identifier.

    For SKOS vocabularies the identifier is a URI which may or may not have
    any particular relation to the vocabulary term (it may be derived from
    the label or may include a randomly generated number, UUID, etc.)

    Anyway, I'm wondering if a more unified view of persistent identifiers &
    controlled vocabularies would be fruitful - I think the mapping problems
    are similar, for instance. Yes, individual people aren't subdivisible or
    differently mappable in the way abstract concepts are (though there are
    factors like pseudonyms and the Bourbaki case that add a little
    complexity there) - but research articles (DOI's) do have component
    parts and belong to journals, publishers, etc, and there are real
    complex and evolving relationships between organizations and their
    components.

    So I guess my question is - should the charter also mention the PID IG
    among the relationships and plan something to work with that interest group?

    Arthur

  • Jane Frazier's picture

    Author: Jane Frazier

    Date: 14 Jul, 2015

    I, too, think I'm already in the list of participants. I am, or have been,
    involved in all of the roles creator, maintainer, publisher, user.

    cheer,
    jane

    On 14 July 2015 at 03:34, apsmith wrote:

    > I believe I am already in the participants table. As far as roles, it
    > depends:
    > * creator & maintainer (for a new controlled vocabulary for physics we
    > are close to releasing)
    > * user - (of PACS, CODATA constants, elements/isotopes?, orgref
    > institutions list)
    >
    > I actually had just been thinking of posting a question to this group
    > anyway...
    >
    > It has seemed to me recently there's a lot of overlap or maybe
    > synchronicity between persistent identifiers and controlled vocabularies.
    > Each provides a way to authoritatively link together digital items through
    > a common factor (the DOI of a reference, subject keywords, ORCID of a
    > researcher). Authority files like OCLC's VIAF are basically large
    > controlled vocabularies for people, places, institutions, etc to which is
    > usually also tied an identifier. ISNI I think mostly derived from the OCLC
    > data as a name authority list that has evolved into an
    > individual/institutional identifier.
    >
    > For SKOS vocabularies the identifier is a URI which may or may not have
    > any particular relation to the vocabulary term (it may be derived from the
    > label or may include a randomly generated number, UUID, etc.)
    >
    > Anyway, I'm wondering if a more unified view of persistent identifiers &
    > controlled vocabularies would be fruitful - I think the mapping problems
    > are similar, for instance. Yes, individual people aren't subdivisible or
    > differently mappable in the way abstract concepts are (though there are
    > factors like pseudonyms and the Bourbaki case that add a little complexity
    > there) - but research articles (DOI's) do have component parts and belong
    > to journals, publishers, etc, and there are real complex and evolving
    > relationships between organizations and their components.
    >
    > So I guess my question is - should the charter also mention the PID IG
    > among the relationships and plan something to work with that interest group?
    >
    > Arthur
    >
    > --
    > Full post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/vocabulary-services-interest-group/pos...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/49099
    >
    >

    --
    *Jane Frazier*
    Data Librarian | *Australian National Data Service*

    Monash University, Building F, Level 6, Room 26, 900 Dandenong Road,
    Caulfield East, VIC 3145
    Postal address: ANDS Office, Monash University, F610, PO Box 197, Caulfield
    East VIC 3145
    T: +613 9905 6275 / F: +613 9902 0599 | E: jane.frazier@ands.org.au

submit a comment