Actions - DC Usage Board meeting, Manzanillo, 30 September - 1 October 2006 Circulated 2006-11-13 http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0611&L=dc-usage&P=1110
Agenda: http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/09/manzanillo/html/
-
ACTION 2006-09-30: Diane, Stuart, and Joe to draft
-
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.
-
ACTION 2006-09-30: Andy and Pete to include agreed definition of 'controlled vocabulary' in the terminology section of the DCAM for the next release.
-
ACTION 2006-09-30: Tom to write a public response to the
-
ACTION 2006-10-01: Andy to consider UB suggestions (as
-
ACTION 2006-10-01: Andy will revise Andrew's paragraph in
-
ACTION 2006-10-01: Andrew to track the new actions arising
-
ACTION 2006-10-01: Andrew to formally write up the
-
ACTION 2006-10-01: Stuart to review the section of the
-
ACTION 2006-10-01: Tom and Andrew to work on refining the
-
conformance to the abstract model
-
internal consistency
-
relationship of terms in the application profile to
-
ACTION 2006-10-01: Andrew to draft a review document
-
ACTION 2006-10-01: Tom to check DCTerms definitions for consistency
-
ACTION 2006-10-01: Tom to replace the Principles document
-
ACTION 2006-10-01: Tom to look through DCMI site and note those pages
-
Declaring term classes
-
ACTION 2006-10-01: Andy, Pete and Tom to create a new
-
ACTION 2006-10-01: Andy and Pete to add HTML anchors to
-
ACTION 2006-10-01: Andy and Pete to create RDFS declaration
-
ACTION 2006-10-01: Eventually, once term type classes
-
DCMES Finalization (Tom)
-
ACTION 2006-09-30: Tom - Change dc:subject comment: "Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary"
-
ACTION 2006-09-30: Tom - Change dc:language Comment: "Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as RFC 3066"
-
ACTION 2006-09-30: Tom - Change dc:coverage, dc:format, dc:type comments: say 'controlled vocabulary' instead of 'encoding scheme'
-
ACTION 2006-09-30: Tom - Change definition of dc:contributor, deleting the incorrect use of 'primarily'
-
ACTION 2006-09-30: Tom - Change dc:source definition to read: "The resource from which the described resource is derived"
-
ACTION 2006-09-30: Tom - Add "or a geographic place to which the resource applies" to the comment for Coverage
-
ACTION 2006-09-30: Tom - Change definition of dc:coverage to: "The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant."
-
ACTION 2006-09-30: Tom to create a decision document
-
ACTION 2006-09-30: Tom - On the basis of the decision document,
-
ACTION 2006-09-30: Tom - On the basis of the decision document,
-
ACTION 2006-09-30: Tom to go through DCMI Terms document
-
a proposed definition of 'controlled vocabulary' for discussion.
-
comments received, including the above reasoning for not accepting proposed changes for Relation.
-
documented in http://stage.dublincore.org/usageboard/log/html/2006-10-01.meeting-notes-manzanillo.html) in revising the Domain and Range vocabulary.
-
the review report about the model used for the CD AP; a better
explanation is needed. This is to include a statement about how the
model in the application profile diverges or amends the AMCC model
used as the basis for this application profile.
-
from the meeting and ensure their completion. Basis: http://stage.dublincore.org/usageboard/log/html/2006-10-01.meeting-notes-manzanillo.html.
-
outcomes of the review process to include a good stand-alone
description of the application profile and a characterisation of the
types of conformance testing, with a description of the testing
process. Andrew is to prepare feedback to the Working Group
independently of the formal statement.
-
process document which concerns the requirements for conforming
status for application profiles, as part of a general review of the
language of the process document.
-
set of questions for reviewing application profiles and the way in which they are asked. Three essential criteria are:
-
existing DC terms.
-
for the CD application profile and circulate it to the UB. Andrew
to prepare feedback for the CD working group and circulate it to the
UB.
-
with changed DCMES definitions, and prepare a document to
summarise nature of changes made. To be done via the UB Wiki? Andy
has a suggestion about how to prepare a before and after document
using HTML Diff.
-
at http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/principles/
with a page that copies the definitions of elements etc from DCAM
and includes a short text stating: that the document which used to
live here has been superseded by the DCAM. Update UB page to say we
do things in light of the DCAM.
-
where a reference to the principles document needs to be changed to a reference to the DCAM as appropriate.
-
DC namespace for term classes, agree on namespace URI, declare
PURLs for the term classes, update namespace policy and agree on
maintenance policy for the new namespace.
-
the DCAM document for the next release of the DCAM.
-
of term type classes.
-
have been approved, Tom to insert PURLs in the DCTerms
documentation replacing the current URIs to the principles
document.
-
on the basis of the public comment document, making all
changes recorded here and correcting the bullet points (summaries
of changes made) accordingly [see http://dublincore.org/usage/public-comment/2006/08/dcmes-changes/].
-
Tom to issue a new set of terms [see http://dublincore.org/usage/public-comment/2006/08/dcmes-changes/].
-
Tom to create a consolidated report of all changes made to
DCMES since approval by NISO -- including changes made between
2001 and 2004. This report will be submitted to NISO for approval
as a new NISO Standard.
-
and prepare a document setting out proposed changes (most of
which are dependent on the DCMES changes) for public comment.