A simpler format for OLAC vocabularies and schemes

[Baden Hughes]

> So, what do you think?  Do you agree with our proposals for
> (i) a syntactic simplification in our XML representation, and

The syntactic revision I personally agree with. Backwards and future
compatibility is a significant factor and as such the new revisions I
believe will make it easier to implement changes community wide and
benefit archives who require special purpose extensions.

> (ii) switching OLAC vocabularies from being centrally
> validated standards to recommendations?  We would welcome
> your feedback.

The proposal for recommendations rather than mandated standards seems to
draw partially on both the W3C and IETF processes, whereby drafts or
notes are submitted, reviewed, implemented and then reviewed with the
view to standardisation if agreed as best practice. This process scales
very well, and yet allows individuals or institutions the freedom to
innovate whilst encouraging best practice once peer review of
implementations has taken place. I think this is important to encourage
innovation amongst participating archives who develop vocabularies to
address their own needs first and then promote the benefits of these for
wider community consideration.

Baden