innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices

Title: "DCMI Naming Policy" issue
Modified: 2004-03-22 09:41, Monday
Maintainer: Tom Baker
Latest version: http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/03/ISSUES/docs-naming/
See also: http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/03/ISSUES/

SUMMARY

I have extensively rewritten an earlier draft by Stu Weibel
(see below), renaming it "DCMI Naming Policy" and posting
it at:

    http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/03/naming-policy.html

In Bath, I would like to ask the Usage Board to indicate its
approval of this document (or conditional approval, with
comments, as the case may be). We would then report this
approval to the Directorate, which would formally approve
the document as a DCMI Recommended Resource.

BACKGROUND

As originally declared in 1998, the fifteen elements of
Dublin Core had "names" (which called "labels" at the time) in
uppercase [1]. Although there was discussion about changing
the names to lowercase (notably at DC-8 in Ottawa, October
2000), this was not done, and the uppercase names progressed
through the NISO and then ISO processes and are currently
shown in ISO 15836 of February 2003 [2]. The uppercase names
are thus also reflected in the DCMI document "Dublin Core
Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1: Reference Description",
which is word-for-word identical with ISO 15836 [3].

However, the official DCMI term declarations -- those that
have a Usage Board status of "Recommended" (as reflected in
[4], [5], and [6]) -- currently have URIs based on a name
in lowercase. This change was based on a decision of the
Directorate dated 2002-09-13 (as reported on the Web page
"DCMI Usage Board Decisions" [7]) which, however, points to
a placeholder document [8].

In September, Andy posted the most recent draft of that paper
on the UKOLN Web site [9] and agreed to shepherd the case
change proposal through UB for eventual publication as a DCMI
recommendation (see point A.1 below). Responsibility for
the text, however, lies with the currently listed author,
Stu Weibel, or at any rate with the DCMI Directorate.

After the case change is approved, the Directorate would
presumably seek a corresponding change in the corresponding
formal standards documents. In April 2002, John Kunze posted
a corrected draft of RDF 2413 [10] but this has since expired
and been replaced by a placeholder [11].

[1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2413.txt 
[2] http://www.niso.org/international/SC4/n515.pdf
[3] http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/
[4] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/
[5] http://dublincore.org/usage/terms/history/
[6] http://dublincore.org/2003/03/24/dces#
[7] http://dublincore.org/usage/decisions/#Decision-2002-02
[8] http://dublincore.org/documents/2002/09/13/case/
[9] http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/case-policy/, archived as:
    http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/03/2003-09-28.case-policy.html
[10] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kunze-rfc2413bis-01.txt
[11] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kunze-rfc2413bis-02.txt

------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX: Recent decisions and action items
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A.1. SEATTLE Action Item 19: Andy to shepherd the case change proposal
     through UB for eventual issue as a DCMI recommendation.