Dublin Core (Registered Trademark) Metadata Initiative logo and catchphrase: 
Making it easier to find information
Jump to main content: This Page
Jump to site map: New Page
Dublin Core (Registered Trademark) logo in banner
 
 

 

Title:        Editorial changes to terms in the Dublin Core 
              Metadata Element Set (DCMES) - response to comments
Identifier:   http://dublincore.org/usage/decisions/2006/2006-03.response-to-comments.shtml
Date:         2006-12-18

The decision on editorial changes to terms of the Dublin
Core Metadata Element Set [1] took into account comments
submitted by Pete Johnston [2] and by the Information Standards
and Interoperability Team of the Treasury Board of Canada
Secretariat of the Government of Canada [3].

Pete Johnston felt the proposed DCMES changes [4] were
inconsistent in their use of the terms "controlled vocabulary"
and "encoding scheme" and suggested specifying "syntax encoding
scheme" or "vocabulary encoding scheme" [2].  For readability,
however, the Usage Board preferred that the more general phrase
"controlled vocabulary" be used throughout.

To the suggestions from Treasury Board reviewers [4], the
Usage Board took the following positions:

1) The Usage Board agreed that the definitions and comments of
   element refinements for Coverage, Description, Format,
   Relation, and Date need to be aligned with the new
   definitions for DCMES elements and has taken this task
   into the Usage Board workplan for 2007.

2) The Usage Board approved the following definition of Source
   as suggested by the reviewers:

        The resource from which the described resource
        is derived.

3) The reviewers suggested the following definition for
   Relation:

        A resource associated with the described resource.

   The Usage Board noted that similar wordings had been
   proposed in the past and felt that the words "associated
   with" have connotations that are too narrow.  
   
   The Usage Board approved the definition as originally 
   proposed: 
   
        A related resource.

4) The element Format was proposed for public comment with
   the definition: 

        The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of
        the resource.

   The Treasury Board reviewers felt that the term "file
   format" made the definition applicable too specifically
   to electronic resources and suggested:

        The physical or digital characteristics of the
        resource.

   However, the Usage Board felt that the suggested wording
   was too broad. The words "file format" are intentionally
   specific to electronic resources, and the words "physical
   medium" and "dimension" are intentially specific to
   physical resources; they represent the three things that
   are in scope for the term.

   Moreover, "file format" is a term of art for digital media
   formats and does not have the usual meaning of "format".
   As the name of something, "file format" need not be changed
   for repeating a word from the term label.

   The broader term "characteristics", on the other hand,
   would encompass things outside the scope of Format, such as
   the physical characteristic "hot".

   The Usage Board therefore approved the definition of Format
   as originally proposed:

        The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of
        the resource.

5) The Government of Canada uses the element Type to provide
   "information about the purpose and internal structure of a
   resource's content" [5,6].  Some of these uses seemed
   to fall outside the scope of the definition proposed
   for public comment:

        The genre, functional category, or aggregation level
        of the resource.

   The Treasury Board reviewers therefore proposed a more
   explicit definition:

        The genre, functional category, purpose, intellectual
        structure, or aggregation level of the resource.

   The Usage Board, however, felt that the terms in the
   Government of Canada Type Scheme do, in fact, fall under
   the broad category "genre".  The Usage Board therefore 
   sees no contradiction between Government of Canada usage
   and the definition as finalized by the Usage Board (see
   below):

        The nature or genre of the resource.

6) For the element Coverage, the following definition had
   been proposed for public comment:

        The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, or
        the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant.

   The Treasury Board reviewers felt that the words "spatial
   or temporal topic of the resource" did not capture the full
   scope of usage of this element within the Government of
   Canada, where the spatial aspect of Coverage is also used
   for resources that "apply to" a certain geographic area
   (e.g., for employment opportunities in a specific area).

   The reviewers suggested the definition:

        The spatial or temporal characteristics of the
        resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource
        is relevant.

   However, the Usage Board felt that the examples given do,
   in fact, fall under the proposed definition of Coverage,
   as "applicability" falls under a broad view of "aboutness".

   That spatial applicability is in scope has been made clear
   in the definition approved by the Usage Board:

        The spatial or temporal topic of the resource,
        the spatial applicability of the resource, or the
        jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant.

   The Usage Board notes that including temporal applicability
   within the scope of Coverage would have introduced an
   overlap with the element refinement Valid ("Date (often
   a range) of validity of a resource").

The definition of Type was subject to careful discussion in
light of implementation experience -- in practice, Type has
been interpreted quite broadly -- and in light of the DCMI
Abstract Model.  Comparing the existing definition, from 1999:

    The nature or genre of the content of the resource.

to the definition proposed for public comment:

    The genre, functional category, or aggregation level
    of the resource.

the Usage Board felt that the proposed definition makes the
semantics of Type more specific in ways that are not well
understood.  The definition that was approved:

    The nature or genre of the resource.

follows the wording of the existing definition and retains
its broad applicability.

[1] http://dublincore.org/usage/decisions/2006/2006-03.dcmes-changes.shtml
[2] http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/09/manzanillo/dcmes-changes/2006-09-21.dcmes-comments.html
[3] http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/09/manzanillo/dcmes-changes/2006-09-25.GC_Comments.html
[4] http://dublincore.org/usage/public-comment/2006/08/dcmes-changes/
[5] http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/im-gi/meta/profil/profil00_e.asp#_Toc132442436
[6] http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/im-gi/mwg-gtm/typ-typ/docs/2003/schem/schem_e.asp