Vocabularies issues

[Frederic Hessman]

Thanks for the issues list, Norman - helps to bring things to a point.

Assuming that the discussion has basically already taken place, are we  
ready to simply vote?  If so....


1. Format of non-distributed "Master-vocabulary":
	_X_ nothing mandated (i.e. it's the business of the publishers and  
not ours to decide how publishers do their hidden work)
	___ Turtle
	___ text

2. Format of the published vocabularies:
	_X_ XML or Turtle (let Darwin decide, assuming that the unproven  
assertion that XML alone isn't good enough is true)
	___ XML

3.  Versioning
	___ explicit in namespace (e.g. http://myvocab.org/myvocab_v1.1#mytoken)
	___ hidden, like in Dublin Core (e.g. http://myvocab.org/myvocab/#mytoken)
	_X_ both, a new option: the hidden version is the latest, but really  
points to explicitly labeled version, so that old versions remain  
accessible.


My opinion on issue 1 is very strong:  we have NO business mandating  
how a publisher maintains the unpublished (!) master vocabulary.

My vote on issue 2 is "libertarian" and meant to encourage us to get a  
workable compromise (I still don't see why we can't just use XML, but  
I'm willing to bow to the experts on this).

My vote on issue 3 is cheating, since Norman didn't list the third  
option:  hidden versioning is convenient for most users as long as  
there is a mechanism for determining what version one has read in the  
past (to see if anything has changed) - I presume we can come up with  
some recommendation on this important point?  Doesn't Dublin Core have  
something like

	<nonskos:vocabularyVersionNumber>1.1</ 
nonskos:vocabularyVersionNumber>????

Rick