Topic: http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/09/manzanillo/encoding-schemes/html/
-
ISSUE: How should the existing encoding schemes be classified into vocabulary or syntax encoding schemes?
-
ACTION 2006-10-01: Suggestion to DCAM authors: Syntax Encoding Schemes: Amend definition to include 'or enumerated list of strings' after 'string'.
-
ACTION 2006-10-01: Suggestion to DCAM authors: Vocabulary Encoding Schemes: Amend definition to read: "A vocabulary encoding scheme is an enumerable set of resources". Need to acknowledge that the string(s) specified by a SES actually have an underlying concept space.
-
ISSUE: Does a SES map to RDF datatype?
-
ACTION 2006-10-01: Joe and Pete to summarise concisely the relationship between SES, VES and things as illuminated by the UB discussion. Must address the issue of whether syntax encoding schemes map to RDF datatypes.
Agreed categorisation of existing schemes:
| Box | SES |
| DCMIType | VES |
| DDC | VES |
| IMT | VES |
| ISO3166 | SES |
| ISO639-2 | SES |
| LCC | VES |
| LCSH | VES |
| MESH | VES |
| NLM | VES |
| Period | SES |
| Point | SES |
| RFC1766 | SES |
| RFC3066 | SES |
| TGN | VES |
| UDC | VES |
| URI | SES |
| W3CDTF | SES |
-
ACTION 2006-10-01: Suggestion to DCAM authors: see UB categorisation of existing schemes (see http://stage.dublincore.org/usageboard/log/html/2006-10-01.meeting-notes-manzanillo.html).
-
NOTA BENE: ISO3166 and ISO639-2 changed to SES from original proposal