innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices

DCMI Type Working Group

Join this working group...

Chair: Ann Apps, MIMAS, University of Manchester
Status: This working group is inactive.
Established: 1998-11-04
Deactivated: 2004-10-15
Charter:
  • Review DCMI Type Vocabulary and propose any needed additions.
  • Provide a forum for discussion of ways to encode types, sharing experience and knowledge.

Milestones/Deliverables

Scheduled Milestone Description Editor/Contact Status/History
2003-04-30 Moving Image and Still Image Proposal Simon Pockley Completed
2002-09-30 Guidance for Domains and Organisations Developing Type Vocabularies for use with Dublin Core: Outline Ann Apps Completed
2002-09-30 Annotated list of standard type encoding schemes Ann Apps Working Group Resource - Completed
2002-03-28 Proposal for a physical object DCMI Type Ann Apps Completed
2000-07-11 DCMI Type Vocabulary Rebecca Guenther Completed
1999-03-15 RFC 2413 Review Rebecca Guenther Completed

Open Issues

None.


Forums

Mailing list

Archive:  Download the mail archive (426k Zip)


Background

None.


History

  • 2003-06. Moving Image and Still Image added to the DCMI Type Vocabulary, following approval of the proposals by the DCMI Usage Board. Image remains in the DCMI Type Vocbulary.
  • Group meeting: 2002-10-17 (at DC2002): Discussed the Moving Image proposal. Meeting Report.
  • A proposal for a physical object DCMI Type was submitted to, and approved by, the DCMI Usage Board meeting in May 2002. There is an apparent need within the community for the physical object DCMI Type, and there was a consensus in this working group to produce a proposal.
  • Group meeting: 2001-10-23 (at DC9): Discussed future work of the group to focus on the production of guidance material for developing domain-specific types, rather than defining a DC sub-type list. Meeting Report.
  • Rebecca Guenther stood down as chair of the working group: 2001-02.
  • Group meeting: 2000-10-4/6 (at DC8) : This meeting was chaired by Amy Tracy Wells. The minutes include a list of attendees. It was decided to assemble a list of typelists used within various domains.
  • High level type list approved as DCMI Type Vocabulary: 2000-07-11 (with the dropping of types: model, party, physical object, place).
  • Group meeting: 1999-10-25/27 (at DC7); Discussed high level types to be included in DCT1, their relationship with DC.Format types, and a proposal for Qualifier Usage.
  • Date constituted: 1998-11-04; Founded after DC6, this group continues work started by the DCMI Type and Format Working Group in their Type Element Working Draft.

Summary of Progress before DC9

The DCMI Type Working Group developed a high level list of possible resource types, DCMI Type Vocabulary (previously know as DCT1), along with their definitions. This list was ratified as a scheme qualifier for the DC-Type element, after the removal of a few suggested types, on 2000-07-11.

The group then moved on to attempt to identify a more comprehensive subtype list of generally used resource types, to provide for more specific typing of a resource, the working name of this list being DCT2. Based on the Alexandria Digital Object Type Thesaurus and an earlier 'structuralist' proposal (see Resources below), Rebecca Guenther developed a prototype list which was refined following discussion on the working group's email list. This proposed DCT2 list was discussed at DC8 but no decision was made on its acceptance by the working group, reflecting the difficulty in providing a list which satisfies all domains.

At DC8, it was decided to gather lists of types used in domain-specific applications and then attempt to distill from these lists commonly used types to produce a singular, comprehensive, consistent subtype list to recommend for acceptance as a second scheme qualifier for DC-Type. Several lists of types have been identified through this exercise, some very domain-specific, including geospatial, education, health and music.

There have also been suggestions that the DCMI Type working group focus on identifying a list of domains and an appropriate type list within each of those domains, i.e. a list of type lists. And there have been questions as to whether developing a subtype list is a sensible approach at all, or whether domain- and application-specific types should be defined in domain or local namespaces within application profiles.

It has been proposed that the DC type list be the default list. Best practice would be to select at least one value from that list and if other types are desired they be included with the scheme qualifier (a URI).


None.


Resources