In response Rod's suggestion about vocabulary reuse: Absolutely, we should make every effort to re-use existing vocabularies That promotes interoperability whereas duplication does not. This is a case of the golden rule -- we should adopt others' vocabularies as we would have them adopt ours.
In response to Jim's question about which neighboring or encompassing domain vacabularies should we re-use? All that are compatible and demonstrably more general and well established; e.g., Dublin Core, FOAF, etc.
I support Roger's plans for methods, BUT...
I strongly suggest that we take this opportunity to dispense with (reject, clean out) the naming convention that used prefixes on terms like "base" and "core". Just name the concepts to optimize common understanding and specificity. Trying to convey ontological structure with names seems ill-advised. The prefixes put people off and imposed an artificial constraint (only two levels).
-Stan