Changes to DCAM based on 2007 Public Comment
See also http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/AMCommentSummary (summary of public comments)
Revision of AMCommentSummary
-
ACTION 2007-03-23 Pete to finalize Comment Summary by Tuesday March 27 and "freeze" -- announcements will point to this.
-
ACTION 2007-03-23 Tom will prepare "Change summary" on the basis of the "comment summary" (cut and paste just those points that have changes)
Revision of DCAM
-
ACTION 2007-03-23 Pete to edit http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/04/02/abstract-model/ on the basis of edits described in http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/AMCommentSummary by Wednesday 28 March
DCAM changes decided in 2007-03-23 telecon
-
RESOLVED 2007-03-23 For issue "Reference model" - use "information model"
-
RESOLVED 2007-03-23 For issue "Described resource" - change "may be" to "is"
-
In section 3, first sentence, "each DC metadata description describes one, and only one, described resource" - change to "only one, resource" (deleting "described").
-
In section 2, second bullet list, second point, change: "(about one, and only one, described resource) and zero or one resource URI" to "(about one, and only one, resource) and zero or one described resource URI".
-
In Terminology, change definition of "description" from: "One or more statements about one, and only one, described resource" to "One or more statements about one, and only one, resource."
-
ACTION 2007-03-23 Pete to confirm Andy's agreement to the above changes.
-
RESOLVED 2007-03-23 For issue "Description model, description set, description": change "the Description model" to "the DCMI Description set model" in the following places:
-
caption of Figure 2
-
new sub-section heading under Section 2
-
bullet points, Section 2: from "The abstract model of the vocabularies used in DC metadata descriptions is as follows:" to "The abstract model of the vocabularies used in DCMI description sets is as follows:".
-
final bullet point, Section 2: should read: "The DCMI description set model does not provide..."
-
RESOLVED 2007-03-23 For issue "Definition of description set": Change definition of Description Set in glossary to read "a set of one or more descriptions, each of which describes a single resource".
-
RESOLVED 2007-03-23 For issue "Definitions of has range and has domain"
-
Change definition of "has range" to "A relationship between a property and a class which indicates that when the property is part of a property/value pair, the corresponding value is always an instance of that class."
-
Change definition of "has domain" to "A relationship between a property and a class which indicates that when the property is part of a property/value pair, the described resource is always an instance of that class."
-
First two bullet points of Vocabulary Model need to be changed accordingly
-
RESOLVED 2007-03-23 For issue "Definitions of property/value pair". Douglas had suggested "The combination of a property and a value, used to describe [insert: one property of] a resource." Instead, we decided to change definition of "property/value pair" in Terminology from: "The combination of a property and a value, used to describe a resource." to "The combination of a property and a value, used to describe a characteristic of a resource."
-
RESOLVED 2007-03-23 For issue "Resource URI" - see resolution to issue "Described Resource" above.
-
RESOLVED 2007-03-23 For issue "Document structure" - add sub-headings to Section 2 as proposed
-
RESOLVED 2007-03-23 For issue "Rich representation in RDF" - see issue ...
-
RESOLVED 2007-03-23 For issue "Value representation and Value URI" - see OWL-DL compatibility discussion.
-
RESOLVED 2007-03-23 For issue "Vocabulary Encoding Schemes": Joe was arguing that VES should always be a set of concepts. No change required.
-
RESOLVED 2007-03-23 For issue "Abstract syntax required". Leave it open for now, see what comments come in for second Public Comment period. Add a note to Section 5 to the effect that semantics are not described in the DCAM document - rather, see DC-RDF (i.e., reference DC-RDF here). ("To be explicit that we are actually dodging the issue for now.")
-
ACTION 2007-03-23 Mikael: Formulate a sentence for Section 5 saying DCAM does not deal with this level for now.
-
RESOLVED 2007-03-23 For issue "Comparing URIs" - add reference to RDF treatment of URIs as an additional sentence after the definition of "URI".
-
ACTION 2007-03-23 Mikael: Formulate a sentence on RDF treatment of URIs in the definition of "URI".
-
RESOLVED 2007-03-23 For issue "VES and Rich Representations" - partly resolved by removing Rich Representation. Issue of Dewey versions is not a DCAM issue.
-
RESOLVED 2007-03-23 For issue "Remove Rich Representations from Description Model".
-
ACTION 2007-03-23 Mikael: Formulate an explanation of why we are removing Rich Representations (put directly into http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/AMCommentSummary).
-
ACTION 2007-03-23 Pete - Update UML, deleting Rich Representation and adding a statement for literal values - run it by Andy, circulate for comment. Delete Value Representation - no longer necessary.
-
RESOLVED 2007-03-23 In Introduction, delete the second-to-last sentence: "Note that the UML modeling used here shows the abstract model but is not intended to form a suitable basis for the development of software applications."