Proposed changes to DCMI property definitions
Introduction
This document indicates some potential problems with the wording of some of the definitions in the DCMES and proposes some alternatives.
Proposed changes
Coverage
- Label
-
Coverage
- Definition
-
The extent or scope of the content of the resource.
- Comment
-
Coverage will typically include spatial location (a place name or geographic coordinates), temporal period (a period label, date, or date range) or jurisdiction (such as a named administrative entity). Recommended best practice is to select a value from a controlled vocabulary (for example, the Thesaurus of Geographic Names [TGN]) and that, where appropriate, named places or time periods be used in preference to numeric identifiers such as sets of coordinates or date ranges.
- Problem
-
The use of "extent" in the definition is potentially confusing w.r.t. the Format element and Extent element refinement. Furthermore, it's not totally clear what 'scope' means?
- Proposed definition
-
The spatial or temporal scope/topic(?) of the resource or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant.
- Proposed comment
-
Coverage includes spatial location (a named place or a location specified by its geographic coordinates), temporal period (a named period, date, or date range) or jurisdiction (a named administrative entity). Recommended best practice is to select a value from a controlled vocabulary (for example, the Thesaurus of Geographic Names [TGN]) and that, where appropriate, named places or time periods be used in preference to numeric identifiers such as sets of coordinates or date ranges.
Description
- Label
-
Description
- Definition
-
An account of the content of the resource.
- Comment
-
Description may include but is not limited to: an abstract, table of contents, reference to a graphical representation of content or a free-text account of the content.
- Problem
-
The definition should not refer to the "content of the resource", simply to the "resource". The comment should not refer to "a reference to a graphical representation", simply to "a graphical representation".
- Proposed definition
-
An account of the resource.
- Proposed comment
-
Description may include but is not limited to: an abstract, a table of contents, a graphical representation, or a free-text account of the resource.
Format
- Label
-
Format
- Definition
-
The physical or digital manifestation of the resource.
- Comment
-
Typically, Format may include the media-type or dimensions of
- Problem
-
The current definition implies that the value is a "manifestation
- Proposed definition
-
The media-type or dimensions of the resource.
- Proposed comment
-
Format may be used to identify the software, hardware, or other equipment needed to display or operate the resource. Examples of dimensions include size and duration. Recommended best practice is to select a value from a controlled vocabulary (for example, the list of Internet Media Types [MIME] defining computer media formats).
-
the resource. Format may be used to identify the software, hardware,
or other equipment needed to display or operate the resource. Examples
of dimensions include size and duration. Recommended best practice is
to select a value from a controlled vocabulary (for example, the list
of Internet Media Types [MIME] defining computer media formats).
-
of the resource", which is not the intention. This issue has
previously been raised on one of the the DCMI lists (I forget when and
where) which suggests that at least one real end-user has
mis-interpretted this wording in this way.
Language
- Label
-
Language
- Definition
-
A language of the intellectual content of the resource.
- Comment
-
Recommended best practice is to use RFC 3066 [RFC3066], which, in conjunction with ISO 639 [ISO639], defines two- and three-letter primary language tags with optional subtags. Examples include "en" or "eng" for English, "akk" for Akkadian, and "en-GB" for English used in the United Kingdom.
- Problem
-
RFC3066 says that if both 2- and 3-letter codes exist, then the 2-letter code must be used. The en/eng example is therefore wrong. Change to 'fr' to broaden number of examples ('en-GB' already appearing later in the sentence). Also, the use of "intellectual content of the" is unnecessary.
- Proposed definition
-
A language of the resource.
- Proposed comment
-
Recommended best practice is to use RFC 3066 [RFC3066], which, in conjunction with ISO 639 [ISO639], defines two- and three-letter primary language tags with optional subtags. Examples include "fr" for French, "akk" for Akkadian and "en-GB" for English used in the United Kingdom.
Relation
- Label
-
Relation
- Definition
-
A reference to a related resource.
- Comment
-
Recommended best practice is to identify the referenced resource
- Problem
-
As per the DCAM, the value is the related resource, not a
- Proposed definition
-
A related resource.
- Proposed comment
-
[Unchanged] Recommended best practice is to identify the referenced resource by means of a string or number conforming to a formal identification system.
-
by means of a string or number conforming to a formal identification system.
-
reference to the resource.
Rights
- Label
-
Rights Management
- Definition
-
Information about rights held in and over the resource.
- Comment
-
Typically, Rights will contain a rights management statement for
- Problem
-
the comment refers both to a 'statement' and a reference to a
- Proposed definition
-
[Unchanged] Information about rights held in and over the resource.
- Proposed comment
-
Typically, Rights information includes a rights management statement for the resource. Rights information often encompasses Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), Copyright, and various Property Rights.
-
the resource, or reference a service providing such information.
Rights information often encompasses Intellectual Property Rights
(IPR), Copyright, and various Property Rights. If the Rights element
is absent, no assumptions may be made about any rights held in or over
the resource.
-
service that provides a statement' This is an implementation issue
and shouldn't be in the comment. Also, the explicit mention about
what applications should do or not do if the Rights element is missing
is innappropriate because it implies that the element can only be used
(or not) as part of a particular set of properties.
Source
- Label
-
Source
- Definition
-
A Reference to a resource from which the present resource is
- Comment
-
The present resource may be derived from the Source resource in
- Problem
-
Same as with Relation. Also, the use of "Source resource" is horrible. Use of "described resource" is better than "present resource".
- Proposed definition
-
A resource from which the described resource is derived.
- Proposed comment
-
The described resource may be derived from the referenced resource in whole or in part. Recommended best practice is to identify the referenced resource by means of a string or number conforming to a formal identification system.
-
derived.
-
whole or in part. Recommended best practice is to identify the
referenced resource by means of a string or number conforming to a
formal identification system.
Subject
- Label
-
Subject and Keywords
- Definition
-
The topic of the content of the resource.
- Comment
-
Typically, a Subject will be expressed as keywords, key phrases or classification codes that describe a topic of the resource. Recommended best practice is to select a value from a controlled vocabulary or formal classification scheme.
- Problem
-
Current label is misleading. Use of "content of the" in definition is inappropriate. "Better to use "represented using" rather than "expressed as" in the comment. Need to acknowledge use of Coverage for spatial or temporal topics. Depending on the agreed definition of Coverage, it may be appropriate to add "To describe the spatial or temporal topic of the resource, use the Coverage element" to the comment.
- Proposed label
-
Subject
- Proposed definition
-
The topic of the resource.
- Proposed comment
-
Typically, a Subject will be represented using keywords, key phrases or classification codes that describe a topic of the resource. Recommended best practice is to select a value from a controlled vocabulary or formal classification scheme.
Type
- Label
-
Resource Type
- Definition
-
The nature or genre of the content of the resource.
- Comment
-
Type includes terms describing general categories, functions, genres, or aggregation levels for content. Recommended best practice is to select a value from a controlled vocabulary (for example, the DCMI Type Vocabulary [DCMITYPE]). To describe the physical or digital manifestation of the resource, use the Format element.
- Problem
-
The comment echos the current definition of Format. If the definition of Format is changed then this should be changed as well. Also, the comment refers to "content", rather than specifically to the resource.
- Proposed definition
-
The nature or genre of the resource.
- Proposed comment
-
Type can be used to indicate the general category, function, genre, or aggregation level of the resource. Recommended best practice is to select a value from a controlled vocabulary (for example, the DCMI Type Vocabulary [DCMITYPE]). To describe the media-type or dimensions of the resource, use the Format element.
Conforms To
- Label
-
Conforms To
- Definition
-
A reference to an established standard to which the resource conforms.
- Comment
-
None.
- Problem
-
The use of "A reference to" in the definition is problematic.
- Proposed definition
-
An established standard to which the resource conforms.
- Proposed comment
-
[Unchanged] None.
Use of "content of the resource" in definitions
A number of the current terms in the DCMES use "content of the resource" rather than just "resource" in their definitions (contributor, coverage, creator, description, subject and type). Furthermore, language uses "intellectual content of the resource". This appears to arise from an attempt to differentiate those terms that are used to describe the "work" from those that are used to describe the "manifestation". It is primarily a feature of the fact that DCMI was never very clear about what kinds of resources its terms are used to describe, either in the general case or in the specific case of particular descriptions.
I would recommend changing all usage of "[intellectual] content of the resource" to "resource" in the definitions (consider the case where DC is being used to describe abstract concepts, as we do oursleves, or natural objects for example). (Note that this document does not make explicit proposals for doing this, except where the definitions of terms are being changed for other reasons.) Coverage is problematical, becuase in this case the phrase "content of the resource" is used to indicate that the definition is referring to what the resource is about rather than where it is or when it was created. It might be helpful to consider using the same language in coverage as is used in subject (e.g. "the spatial or temporal topic of the resource") as suggested above?