Votes by http://www.sztaki.hu/servlets/voting        Active Votes Closed Votes Preferences Logout Manual Policy

Result

1. Question: Qualifier for "Subject": Classification

	Label:	Classification
	Name:	classification
	Definition:	Subject identified by notation (code) taken from a controlled classification scheme.
	Comment:	The name of the controlled classification scheme from which the classification is derived should always be identified as a value qualifier Existing resource discovery implementations treat classification notation (codes) differently to 'words' describing `subject. Typically notation is used to create a browsing structure whereas words are not, notation is not displayed in retrieved lists whereas 'subject words' are displayed. It is important for software to precisely recognise notations as different from 'subject words'. Looking for numeric strings cannot be relied on as notations may be alphanumeric so it is useful to identify them by means of a qualifier. It is unrealistic to expect software to identify notations as such by means of the value qualifier for subject, as there is a potentially huge list of value qualifiers which cover subject headings, and thesauri as well as classification notations.
	Type:	Element Refinement

type: single selection

Answer	Points
Approve	14
Reject	6

Abstain: 4

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter	Vote	Voter's comment
Simon Cox	Approve
Renato Iannella	Reject	This is not an element refinement - has nothing to do with *Subject*
Jon Mason	abstain	this qualifier is somehwat unfriendly & the commentary makes it worse.
David Bearman	Reject	not a refinement. won't dumb down. In any case, it isn't a classification but a classification code.
Priscilla Caplan	Approve	Subject classifications such as DDC and UDC are excellent means of representing subject content and are quite valid for Subject. Practically, as the WG points out, there must be some way of indicating Subject contains a classifcation code.
Traugott Koch	Approve	Together with keywords (controlled ones from thesauri and other vocabularies, or uncontrolled ones), classification is the main expression of subject/topic, used in many communities. The code is the main expression for a given classification and is normally independent from a specific human language. An encoding scheme needs always to be specified, as for dates. It does dumb down together with the encoding scheme information.
Juha Hakala	Reject	Value qualifier (that must be used) does specify implicitly whether the system used to describe the content is a classification or a subject headings list. I doubt if this qualifier would provide much added value. Only knowing that the thing you need to deal with is a classification notation does not help you to deal with it properly.
Diane Hillmann	Reject	I don't think we need this, since classification MUST be qualified by scheme to be useful, in any case.
Stuart Weibel	abstain
Andy Powell	Approve	Comment too long!
Makx Dekkers	Approve	Definition and Comment confuse me as they talk about "notation (code)". In my understanding, "notation" can be words from thesauri and thus not necessarily codes.
Leif Andresen	Approve
Roland Schwaenzl	Approve	Only makes sense for qualified DC in case encoding scheme is explicitly provided. Code needs explicit additional advice how to dumb down.
Tom Baker	Reject	This idea needs work. Unclear whether it is a refinement; maybe it is even redundant. The comment needs tightening too; do we use the term
Rebecca Guenther	Approve
Eric Childress	Approve	Given that an encoding scheme should be designated to make a classification value genuinely useful, I don't have strong feelings on this, but it may be a useful qualifier under some circumstances.
Stuart Sutton	Approve
Sigfrid Lundberg	Approve	It is somewhat redundant with an element refinement here. Classification systems are used a lot in DC metadata, but the fact that a given notation is a classification system has by tradition been implied by its value encoding. I feel that we currently overdoing the substructure by adding redundant information all over the place. A DCMIBox has to be spatial coverage, Format with value encoding IMT has to be Medium, etc... But I can live with this
Erik Jul	Approve
Rachel Heery	Approve	Classification codes need to be distinguished from words somehow, this qualifier does this. Comment needs to be changed for public use.
Diann Rusch-Feja	Approve
eric miller	Reject	This does not seem like a refinement to me at all , but rather a superset of encoding schemes that have something to do with classification numbers.
Warwick Cathro	abstain	There should be few enough classification schemes for an indexing engine to maintain a list of them, if these values need to be excluded from text based indexes.
Shigeo Sugimoto	abstain

2. Question: Encoding Scheme for 'Subject': LCSH

	Label:	LCSH
	Name:	LCSH
	Definition:	Library of Congress Subject Headings
	Type:	Encoding Scheme

type: single selection

Answer	Points
Approve	22
Reject	1

Abstain: 1

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter	Vote	Voter's comment
Simon Cox	Approve	When will this be available online??
Renato Iannella	Reject	Not available online
Jon Mason	Approve
David Bearman	Approve	useful to some communities, which is all we can say about any scheme. I consider the objection that it isn't online to be completely irrelevant to this or any other scheme used by some community
Priscilla Caplan	Approve	As David says, whether an encoding scheme is available online is completely irrelevant. We don't even require the resources described by DCMES to be available online!
Traugott Koch	Approve	Most and all the best subject vocabularies are -at the moment- not online available and/or require a license. If DC rejects vocabularies for that reason it will not be useful as a metadata format in most communities.
Juha Hakala	Approve	Just a generic note: it is nice to have these examples formally specified in here, but we need to register many more classifications and subject headings to get better global coverage. I need to register e.g. Label YSA to Finnish Subject Headings.
Diane Hillmann	Approve
Stuart Weibel	Approve
Andy Powell	Approve
Makx Dekkers	Approve
Leif Andresen	Approve
Roland Schwaenzl	abstain	Should not be used in online available records as long as it isn't available online itself.
Tom Baker	Approve
Rebecca Guenther	Approve
Eric Childress	Approve
Stuart Sutton	Approve
Sigfrid Lundberg	Approve	It is a suprise to me that we have to vote on these different classificationsystems/subject headings things. A registry would do...
Erik Jul	Approve
Rachel Heery	Approve	These particular schemes are listed as examples, they are not meant to be exclusive.
Diann Rusch-Feja	Approve
eric miller	Approve	I think we should liason with the appropriate communities to encourage these groups to make web-accessible the DCMI endorsed encoding schemes.
Warwick Cathro	Approve
Shigeo Sugimoto	Approve

3. Question: Encoding Scheme for 'Subject': MeSH

	Label:	MeSH
	Name:	MESH
	Definition:	Medical Subject Headings
	Type:	Encoding Scheme

type: single selection

Answer	Points
Approve	20
Reject	1

Abstain: 3

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter	Vote	Voter's comment
Simon Cox	abstain	Is this too specialised for the first round? i.e. this is not a cross-domain vocabulary, so perhaps should not be privileged.
Renato Iannella	Reject	Not available online
Jon Mason	abstain
David Bearman	Approve
Priscilla Caplan	Approve
Traugott Koch	Approve	International subject specific vocabularies like MeSH are widely used and often dominate all subject description of large communities, like the biomedical and health sector in this case. Such vocabularies should be recognised by DC as soon as possible. There are more than the ones mentioned in this ballot.
Juha Hakala	Approve
Diane Hillmann	Approve
Stuart Weibel	Approve
Andy Powell	Approve
Makx Dekkers	Approve
Leif Andresen	Approve
Roland Schwaenzl	abstain	comment to 2. applies.
Tom Baker	Approve	I agree we should recognize common subject headings as soon as possible, regardless whether they are online.
Rebecca Guenther	Approve
Eric Childress	Approve
Stuart Sutton	Approve
Sigfrid Lundberg	Approve
Erik Jul	Approve
Rachel Heery	Approve
Diann Rusch-Feja	Approve
eric miller	Approve
Warwick Cathro	Approve
Shigeo Sugimoto	Approve

4. Question: Encoding Scheme for 'Subject': DDC

	Label:	DDC
	Name:	DDC
	Definition:	Dewey Decimal Classification
	Type:	Encoding Scheme
	See also:	http://www.oclc.org/fp/

type: single selection

Answer	Points
Approve	22
Reject	1

Abstain: 1

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter	Vote	Voter's comment
Simon Cox	Approve
Renato Iannella	Reject	Not available online
Jon Mason	Approve
David Bearman	Approve
Priscilla Caplan	Approve
Traugott Koch	Approve
Juha Hakala	Approve
Diane Hillmann	Approve
Stuart Weibel	Approve
Andy Powell	Approve
Makx Dekkers	Approve
Leif Andresen	Approve
Roland Schwaenzl	abstain	comment to 2. applies.
Tom Baker	Approve
Rebecca Guenther	Approve
Eric Childress	Approve
Stuart Sutton	Approve
Sigfrid Lundberg	Approve
Erik Jul	Approve
Rachel Heery	Approve
Diann Rusch-Feja	Approve
eric miller	Approve
Warwick Cathro	Approve
Shigeo Sugimoto	Approve

5. Question: Encoding Scheme for 'Subject': LCC

	Label:	LCC
	Name:	LCC
	Definition:	Library of Congress Classification
	Type:	Encoding Scheme

type: single selection

Answer	Points
Approve	21
Reject	1

Abstain: 2

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter	Vote	Voter's comment
Simon Cox	Approve
Renato Iannella	Reject	Not available online
Jon Mason	abstain
David Bearman	Approve
Priscilla Caplan	Approve
Traugott Koch	Approve
Juha Hakala	Approve
Diane Hillmann	Approve
Stuart Weibel	Approve
Andy Powell	Approve
Makx Dekkers	Approve
Leif Andresen	Approve
Roland Schwaenzl	abstain	comment to 2. applies
Tom Baker	Approve
Rebecca Guenther	Approve
Eric Childress	Approve
Stuart Sutton	Approve
Sigfrid Lundberg	Approve
Erik Jul	Approve
Rachel Heery	Approve
Diann Rusch-Feja	Approve
eric miller	Approve
Warwick Cathro	Approve
Shigeo Sugimoto	Approve

6. Question: Encoding Scheme for 'Subject': UDC

	Label:	UDC
	Name:	UDC
	Definition:	Universal Decimal Classification
	Type:	Encoding Scheme

type: single selection

Answer	Points
Approve	21
Reject	1

Abstain: 2

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter	Vote	Voter's comment
Simon Cox	Approve
Renato Iannella	Reject	Not available online
Jon Mason	abstain
David Bearman	Approve
Priscilla Caplan	Approve
Traugott Koch	Approve
Juha Hakala	Approve
Diane Hillmann	Approve
Stuart Weibel	Approve
Andy Powell	Approve
Makx Dekkers	Approve
Leif Andresen	Approve
Roland Schwaenzl	abstain	comment to 2. applies: It would have been more useful for DCMI to collect online available Schemes and recommend some of those.
Tom Baker	Approve
Rebecca Guenther	Approve
Eric Childress	Approve
Stuart Sutton	Approve
Sigfrid Lundberg	Approve
Erik Jul	Approve
Rachel Heery	Approve
Diann Rusch-Feja	Approve
eric miller	Approve
Warwick Cathro	Approve
Shigeo Sugimoto	Approve

7. Question: Qualifier for 'Title': Alternative

	Label:	Alternative
	Name:	alternative
	Definition:	Any known or used form of the title used as a substitute or alternative to the formal title (or title under which the resource is formally known).
	Comment:	This qualifier can include Title abbreviations as well as translations.
	Type:	Element Refinement

type: single selection

Answer	Points
Approve	18
Reject	5

Abstain: 1

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter	Vote	Voter's comment
Simon Cox	Approve
Renato Iannella	Approve
Jon Mason	Approve
David Bearman	Reject	Like any element, title can be repeated. Adding that one repeat is an alternative for another doesn't do anything.
Priscilla Caplan	Approve	Most search & retrieval applications will display brief bibliographic description for "hits" which includes only 1 title. You have to know which of multiple Title elements is the primary title and which are alternative.
Traugott Koch	Approve	For searching, indexing and discovery applications etc. it is necessary to be able to differentiate between an original title and translations.
Juha Hakala	Approve	Not very useful for searching per se, but nice to have for e.g. display purposes.
Diane Hillmann	Approve	Approved with some level of queasiness. In cases where some weighting of titles is needed, this can provide a method, otherwise simple repetition is preferable.
Stuart Weibel	Approve
Andy Powell	Reject	Definition does not make it clear when/if simply repeating the Title element should be used in preference to using the Alternative refinement.
Makx Dekkers	Reject	See no need for this.
Leif Andresen	Approve
Roland Schwaenzl	abstain	use rdf:ALT
Tom Baker	Reject	I see the usefulness of this distinction in some circumstances, but the definition should be revised: eg, the text actually says that the _qualifier_ can include abbreviations, which is confusing.
Rebecca Guenther	Approve
Eric Childress	Approve
Stuart Sutton	Reject
Sigfrid Lundberg	Approve
Erik Jul	Approve
Rachel Heery	Approve	Labelling a title as alternative means it is not the main, more usual title. This is different semantically from a repeated Title element.
Diann Rusch-Feja	Approve	THE ABOVE URL FOR THE TITEL WG IS NOT CORRECT. THIS HAS BEEN UPDATED AND I AM SORRY TO SEE THAT THIS HAS NOT BEEN INTEGRATED HERE!!!
eric miller	Approve
Warwick Cathro	Approve	Agree with Priscilla's comments.
Shigeo Sugimoto	Approve

8. Question: Qualifier for 'Resource Type': The DCT1 Type Vocabulary

	Label:	DCT1
	Name:	DCT1
	Definition:	A controlled vocabulary indicating the nature or genre of the resource.
	Type:	Encoding Scheme
	See also:	http://www.loc.gov/marc/dc/typequalif-19991210.html

type: single selection

Answer	Points
Approve	19
Reject	5

Abstain: 0

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter	Vote	Voter's comment
Simon Cox	Approve	DCT1 is not a proper ontology, but can serve as "hints for searching".
Renato Iannella	Approve
Jon Mason	Approve
David Bearman	Reject	An extremely imperfect scheme not used by an existing community which DCMI is not in any position to maintain.
Priscilla Caplan	Reject	DCT1 offers primarily media types, which information already has a place in Format. Rather than encourage this redundancy, a list of basic genre types would be much more useful.
Traugott Koch	Approve
Juha Hakala	Approve
Diane Hillmann	Approve	As with "Medium" list, this is a beginning that is unlikely to fill many needs, but provides only a starting point. Of all the lists we're proposing, this is the most likely to be modified by specialized communities. So be it.
Stuart Weibel	Approve
Andy Powell	Approve
Makx Dekkers	Approve
Leif Andresen	Approve
Roland Schwaenzl	Reject	High chance dct1 will not be used.
Tom Baker	Reject
Rebecca Guenther	Approve
Eric Childress	Approve
Stuart Sutton	Approve
Sigfrid Lundberg	Approve	We are still using a slightly massaged version of Roy Tennants "structuralist" type list, which is very nice since you can actually build a browsing system on top of it.
Erik Jul	Reject
Rachel Heery	Approve	A starting point.
Diann Rusch-Feja	Approve
eric miller	Approve
Warwick Cathro	Approve	We need some scheme for TYPE, and I don't see any existing scheme maintained by another community which will serve.
Shigeo Sugimoto	Approve