Review of the Collections Application Profile
This page: http://dublincore.org/usageboardwiki/AgendaBarcelonaCDAP
-
Shepherd: Joe Tennis
Reading
-
Feedback of Usage Board to CDAP WG, December 2006: http://dublincore.org/usageboardwiki/CdapFeedback
-
PDF packet of latest version, Collections Application Profile (and related documents): 2007-03-17.barcelona-cdap.pdf (http://dublincore.org/usageboardwiki/AgendaBarcelonaCDAP?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=2007-03-17.barcelona-cdap.pdf), includes:
-
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/sshreeve/www/dcmi/Collection-ap-summary/2007-03-09/
-
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/sshreeve/www/dcmi/Collection-application-profile/2007-03-09/
-
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/sshreeve/www/dcmi/Collection-terms/2007-03-09/
-
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/sshreeve/www/dcmi/Colldesc-type/2007-03-09/
-
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/sshreeve/www/dcmi/Accrual-method/2007-03-09/
-
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/sshreeve/www/dcmi/Accrual-policy/2007-03-09/
-
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/sshreeve/www/dcmi/Frequency/2007-03-09/
-
Summary of responses to feedback, March 2007: Upload new attachment "ComparisonRubric.rtf"
-
See also:
-
Version of CDAP reviewed in Manzanillo, October 2006: http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/09/manzanillo/profile-cdap/html/
Preparation for the Barcelona meeting
The Usage Board review of CDAP in 2006 [1] identified a need for:
-
Clarity of the data model described and deployed in the AP (manifest in property rubrics)
-
Clarity of definitions of concepts described and deployed in the AP (manifest in property rubrics)
-
Consistency in the use of terminology deriving from DCMI, deriving from any model cited in the profile, or created for use in the profile
-
Clarity and usefulness of references
Questions to consider when reviewing the CD DC AP
-
1. Is the data model clearer? Is the data model complete and consistent with stated purpose of the profile?
-
2. Is the distinction between Collection and Catalogue or Index consistent throughout?
-
3. Does it matter that Catalogue or Index appears at two different levels of remove from collection, without a change in terminology, as depicted on page 11?
[1] http://dublincore.org/usageboardwiki/CdapFeedback
2007-03-10: Email from Sarah Shreeves
The most substantial changes are:
1) The profile itself has been renamed "Dublin Core Collections Application Profile". This better reflects the resource that the AP is meant to describe (collections).
2) We have attempted to clarify the data model by making clear that, while derived from the AMCC model, it does stand on its own.
3) We have attempted to clarify "collection-description" by recategorizing "collection-description" as "catalogue or index", and making the necessary changes to the vocabulary terms and classes.
In addition we have made minor modifications to update the profile (for example, aligning the definitions and labels for dcterms with the most current document).
Below are the comments from the Usage Board on the CDAP from the 2006 meeting. We have tried to respond to each.
-
> 1. The data model used for the CDAP needs a better explanation. This
> explanation should include a statement about how the model in the
> Application Profile diverges from or otherwise amends the AMCC model
> cited as the basis for the profile. The Board feels that more
> explanatory material is needed to assist in relating the data model to
> the AP where dependencies exist.
After discussions with the task force, we clarified that the data model does stand on its own and, although it is derived from the Analytical Model of Collections and their Catalogues, there are not dependencies. External references to the Analytical Model of Collections and their Catalogues have been removed and a simple reference to the model has been left. The relationships between entities have been described. The correspondences between the relationships represented in the data model and the DC Collections AP properties have been listed. See the introduction to the Application Profile.
-
>2. The document should include a summary statement of the
> purpose and scope of the CDAP.
A new section "Purpose and Scope" has been added to the Application Profile. It describes the objectives and scope of the profile. It clearly defines that the profile can be used to describe either collections as aggregations of physical or digital resources or catalogs or indices as collections as aggregations of metadata that describe a collection.
-
> 3. The Board feels that the distinction between "use of CDAP for
> collection descriptions" and "use of CDAP for collections of collection
> descriptions" is a bit confusing, and the CDAP should more clearly
> separate the two. This might be achieved by splitting the current CDAP
> into two separate APs -- one for collection descriptions and one for
> collections of collection descriptions. Editorial decisions of this
> nature are at the discretion of the working group.
After discussions among members of the task force, it did not appear necessary to create two distinct profiles. However, the terminology has been clarified to avoid possible confusions. Whenever possible specific statements have been made for the use of the DC Collections AP for collections or for the use of DC Collections AP for collections descriptions. The collection descriptions have been renamed to avoid confusions. See the comment below as well.
-
> 4. The Board suggests the Working Group reconsider the change of label
> for the term 'Collection-Description' [2]. The Board feels that the old
> label, 'Catalogue or collection description' [3] is clearer and easier
> to understand because the label itself is an example of a typical use
> for the term.
The term "collection-description" has been replaced by "Catalogues or Indices". This term encompasses a range of non-unitary finding aids including, catalogues, finding aids, and indexes. This label covers more adequately the intended scope of the application profile. In addition, we deleted the class http://purl.org/cld/cdtype/UnitaryFindingAid because, as Pete Johnston points out, the DC Collections Application Profile does not support the description of UnitaryFindingAids, it supports the creation of UnitaryFindingAids. We also asserted that the three classes, HierarchicFindingAid, IndexingFindingAid, and AnalyticFindingAid, are subclasess of http://purl.org/cld/cdtype/CatalogueOrIndex. We think that this has helped to clarify the terminology and model.
-
> 5. The term 'Content' is not defined in the AP, but is used in a
> definition for 'item' [4]. The Board asks the Working Group to include
> a definition of content in the AP Glossary.
The reference to "Content" has been removed. The definition for item is: A physical or digital resource.
-
> In general, the Board prefers that Application Profiles be able to
> 'stand alone' as documents; ideally, readers of the CDAP should not
> need to refer to external documents in order to understand its logic
> and suggests that the working group consider adding some additional
> contextual information from external documents as an aid to the reader.
We have tried to extract the reliance on the AMCC document for the data model and include necessary definitions. It would be useful to know if there are other references that need clarification.
Muriel Foulonneau
Sarah Shreeves
co-chairs of the DC Collection Description Application Profile Task Force