|
|||||||
Global navigation options: |
|||||||
Introduction
Questions
Comments on all aspects of this document are invited. Questions about particular elements and refinements, for which answers are desperately needed, are included throughout the document in bold italics.
Namespaces
At least one new namespace is needed from where the proposed new elements and
refinements can be stored and accessed. The DC-Gov Application Profile uses
all existing namespaces and requires the creation a new DC-GOV one, which will
be accessible from the DC site. This means using a combination of namespaces
for our application profile, including DC, DC, DC-gov and DC-terms. This allows
flexibility and maintains the closest links with the international DC initiative.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS
1. Application profile to include Audience element, with accompanying qualifiers. These will be taken from the DC-ed namespace
2. A new refinement for the DC.Date element;
acquired
3. Two new refinements of the DC.Relation element, from the AGLS namespace;
isBasedOn and isBasisFor
3a. A revised definition of the DC.Relation element refinements isVersionOf and hasVersion, to enable easy differentiation from isBasedOn and isBasisFor
4. Additional refinements to the DC.Rights element;
securityClassification
previousSecurityClassification
accessRights
copyright
5. Additional refinements to the DC.Subject element;
category
keyword
6. Additional refinement to the DC.Type element;
aggregation level
The government domain covers many other domains, such as education, health, finance and transport. The capacity to designate various aspects of the intended users of, or audience for, the resources being described is an important function for networked information discovery and retrieval.
Name: audience
Label: Audience
Namespace: Use DC-Ed if the final version of this element is rendered
non-domain specific.
Definition: A category of user for whom the resource is intended.
Comment: Frequently, creators and publishers of government resources
explicitly state the category of user for whom the resource is intended. In
like fashion, end-users frequently use audience characteristics as search terms.
Qualifier that Refines dc-ed:audience: [1]
Name: mediator
Label: Mediator
Definition: An entity that mediates access to the resource.
Comment: The audience for a resource may be one of two basic classes:
(1) an ultimate beneficiary of the resource (such as a student or trainee),
or (2) an entity that mediates access to the resource (such as a teacher or
trainer). The mediator element refinement represents the second of these two
classes.
It will be used by Departments of Education, and may have value to other sectors, such as health and social services. For example, if the resource is information on social security benefits, the ultimate audience is the person who receives benefits but access to this is often mediated by a social worker or citizens advice bureau worker.
Encoding schemes will be needed if the real value is to be gained from this refinement. Various educational encoding schemes are available and there are no doubt others for different domains, e.g. health. We need to list these and decide which are the most useful, and if necessary develop a government scheme.
Name: date.acquired
Label: Acquired
Namespace:
Definition: Date on which the resource was received into the organisation.
Comment: The nature of a resource can change when it is submitted by
one authority to another ( e.g. in legislative procedures) without necessarily
any change being made to the content of that resource. Includes date of receipt
of an e-mail.
Example: The date that a legislative text is tabled for consideration
(=date of acquisition by the House) is not the same as the date the resource
is adopted (by the submitting or receiving authority).
DC-Gov Best Practice:
We need a specific example or two of this, preferably along the lines of "A person searching for……."
Name: isBasedOn
Label: Is Based On
Namespace: http://www.naa.gov.au/recordkeeping/gov_online/agls/1.2
Definition: The resource is a performance, production, derivation, translation,
adaptation or interpretation of another resource
Comment:
DC-Gov Best Practice:
Name: isBasisOf
Label: Is Basis Of
Namespace: http://www.naa.gov.au/recordkeeping/gov_online/agls/1.2
Definition: The resource has a performance, production, derivation, translation,
adaptation or interpretation, namely, the referenced resource.
Comment:
DC-Gov Best Practice:
DC definitions
isVersionOf: The described resource is a version, edition or adaptation
of the referenced resource. Changes in version imply substantive changes in
content rather than differences in format.
hasVersion: The described resource has a version, edition, or adaptation,
namely, the referenced resource.
AGLS definitions:
isVersionOf / HasVersion: One resource is a historical state or edition
of another resource by the same creator
isBasedOn/isBasisFor: One resource is a performance, production, derivation,
translation, adaptation or interpretation of another resource
I have yet to find real support for this, and am seriously thinking of dropping it if nobody comes forward to 'champion' it. Do we really need it, or can we get by with IsVersion?
Specific examples would be very useful. Can anyone supply some?
securityClassification
previousSecurityClassification
accessRights
copyright
Name: securityClassification
Label: Security Classification
Definition: The classification allocated to the resource indicating its
official security status
Comment: Will be needed on intranets where resources with a variety of
classifications will be stored but also on metadatabases designed to indicate
that an information resource exists even if it is not actually available to
the public. This is often needed to meet access to information legislation requirements.
DC-Gov Best Practice: It is envisaged that all users will use their administration's
official classification list as an encoding scheme. Ideally a link should be
given to further explanation of the scheme, though in some administrations,
e.g. UK, this scheme is itself classified.
Name: previousSecurityClassification
Label: Previous Security Classification
Definition: The classification allocated to the resource indicating its
official security status prior to its current status
Comment: Many official documents have their security classification reduced
over time. The ability to search on current and previous markings allows a user
to locate resources that have changed their classification.
DC-Gov Best Practice: It is envisaged that all users will use their administration's
official classification list as an encoding scheme. Ideally a link should be
given to further explanation of the scheme, though in some administrations,
e.g. UK, this information is itself classified.
By repeating this element refinement it will be possible to record all of a
resource's security classification changes.
Example: A political analyst wishes to study the rate at which education
policy resources are reduced from 'Secret' to 'Open'. In addition to Subject
(education policy) he needs to search on rights.securityClassification (open)
as well as rights.previousSecurityClassification (secret) to find suitable resources
to study. (In this case the change date would also be essential - any
opinions? SecurityClassificationChangeDate as a refinement of Date?)
Name: accessRights
Label: Access Rights
Definition: Legal or other rights an individual has to access the resource
or that regulate the administration's right to release or provide access to
the resource
Comment: Contains information on the resource's status under any information
access or privacy laws or regulation.
Note that this differs from, and may even conflict with, the official security
marking given in the 'security classification'; refinement. For example an individual
government officer may classify a document as 'secret' where the relevant 'access
to information' legislation may regard the same document as one that should
be made available to the public.
DC-Gov Best Practice: Use one or more encoding schemes. Different schemes
will be needed depending on the nature of the legislation or regulation covering
access, these schemes will need to be developed and implemented by the relevant
administrations.
Example:
Name: copyright
Label: Copyright
Definition: Statement and identifier indicating the legal ownership and
rights regarding use and re-use of all or part of the resource
Comment: Administrations may publish resources under a variety of copyright
regimes.
DC-Gov Best Practice: a statement is needed to allow searching by copyright
type. The link is useful for providing more information about how the form of
copyright works.
Example: Crown copyright http://www.hmso.gov.uk/docs/copynote.htm
More (non-UK) examples would be useful.
DC Usage board thinks that an encoding scheme would suffice here but I don't
know if one would, or even if one exists. Any ideas?
classification
keyword
Name: classification
Label: Classification
Definition: Term from a controlled vocabulary designed to aid browsing
by subject matter
Comment: Typically taken from a high-level subject scheme or encoded
classification system
Differs from Subject¦Keyword in that it requires a broad heading not
a specific subject descriptor. This will be used for browsing systems (Yahoo-type
categories) and other circumstances where only a broad heading is needed. It
should be possible to use Keyword and Category in conjunction, e.g. to search
all items in a given category with given keywords.
Data in this refinement can also be used as the basis of a 'push' system, to
classify documents for current awareness services.
DC-Gov Best Practice:
Example:
Does this coincide with the proposed DC-Lib Subject¦Classification refinement? I prefer 'Category', as 'Classification' implies an alphanumeric code, but would appreciate comments.
Name: keyword
Label: Keyword
Definition: Term describing the specific subject of the resource
Comment: Will be used, in conjunction with subject.category, to aid the
mapping of multiple thesauri.
DC-Gov Best Practice: Entry would contain the subject to be found at
the lowest level of granularity available in a controlled vocabulary or thesaurus
and descriptive of the subject matter of the resource.
Example:
Originally we requested three refinements for Type; aggregation level, dossier type and item type. These were all rejected outright by the Usage Board, mainly on the basis that encoding schemes would suffice. I am happy to leave this for now and see what the Collection Level Group comes up with. Is everyone happy with this?
Global navigation utility links: |
Unless indicated otherwise, DCMI documents are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Please see the DCMI Document Notice for further instructions.
Metadata associated with this resource: http://dublincore.org/groups/government/profile-200111.shtml.rdf
Copyright © 1995-2013 DCMI. All Rights Reserved. DCMI liability, trademark/service mark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our privacy statements.
The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) is a project of ASIS&T—a U.S. 501(c)(3) nonprofit under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Contributions to DCMI through ASIS&T are tax-deductible to the full extent of the law in the United States.
The DCMI Web site is hosted by the National Library of Korea.
The Dublin Core Metadata Registry is hosted by the Research Center for Knowledge Communities at the University Of Tsukuba, Japan.
Copyright © 1995-2013 DCMI. All Rights Reserved.