Proposed new URI Set request procedure

In order to act transparently and with due process, it is proposed that:

1. That the AGLDWG undertake to establish a formal URI Set submission procedure
2. If 1., that the AGLDWG employ ISO19135 - Geographic information — Procedures for item registration, as its template for formulating a procedure.
3. If 1., that the AGLDWG consider adopting as a URI Set submission procedure the draft decision flow chart prepared and, if 2. that the attached procedure be harmonised with ISO19135 for implementation

• Draft decision flow is Figure 1.

4. If 3., that the AGLDWG consider adopting as a procedure the draft delegation flow chart prepared.

• Draft delegation flow is Figure 2.

5. If 3., that the AGLDWG consider 3 URI Set submission cases:

• URI Set for a Linked Data version of the AGLDWG URI Guidelines
• URI Set for the vocabulary terms of the Australian Governments' Interactive Functions Thesaurus (AGIFT)
• URI Set for the lithology vocabulary terms developed by Dr Jens Klump at CSIRO
• Case descriptions attached.

Explanatory note for 1.

The intention here is that the AGLDWG have a formalised process for considering submissions for the use of data.gov.au-based namespaces. The exact accept/reject criteria for a proposed URI Set can be refined over time but initially we may consider the questions:

Is the dataset intended for use with data.gov.au:

• Relevant to Australia?
• Relevant to Federal Government?
• Is it best hosted at data.gov.au?
• • If not, would data.gov.au still wish to host a copy anyway?

A formalised procedure would allow us to:

• Report decisions on submissions in an open and transparent manner, publicising our reasoning
• Generate tools (submission forms) for submission presentation
• Consider the AGLDWG’s composition including subdomain subcommittees with regard to satisfactory handling of the primary task of data.gov.au governance and management

Acceptance of URI Sets does not mean they are either to be implemented or even implementable. That would require technical testing which is not addressed here. This governance procedure should run before any technical procedures related to the actual implementation of URI Sets which is the focus of the automated testing work.

Explanatory note for 2.

The use of the draft standard would help us adopt existing best practice.

Explanatory note for 3.

Figure 1.

This decision flow chart has been prepared while considering the 3 URI Set submission cases. It would need harmonising with ISO19135 and with the AGLDWG’s scope if that is redefined as it goes through a formalisation process of its own.

Explanatory note for 4.

Figure 2.

While we have not formally committed to subcommittee formulation, I believe facing decisions such as URI Set submissions will trigger us to do so. We have discussed a subcommittee for communications.data.gov.au for the hosting of the URI Guidelines document. Test case 3 may prompt us to consider an environment.data.gov.au or a resources.data.gov.au subcommittee.

Explanatory note for 5.

In considering these cases, the AGLDWG might decide that decisions regarding them cannot be made so soon after accepting a submission decision procedure (considering these cases is conditional on accepting propositions 1 & 3 at least) however they are put forward as examples to flesh out the thinking.

If considered, the first 2 cases should result in accepts and should act as exemplar accept cases. If we cannot accept them the AGLDWG must reconsider its classification foundations. The 3rd case is, in Simon and my opinion a likely reject however the AGLDWG should vote on this case, as it should on all 3. Perhaps the AGLDWG will recommend that the 3rd (or any of the 3) cases be socialised further or that the AGLDWG does not have the correct representation to make such decisions.