innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices

Topic: PBCore - Public Broadcasting Metadata specification
Modified: 2004-03-22 09:41, Monday
Maintainer: Tom Baker
Latest version: http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/03/ISSUES/profiles-pbcore/
See also: http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/03/ISSUES/

Shepherd: Diane Hillmann

SUMMARY (Tom)

In February, the (US) Corporation for Public Broadcasting
put out a Public Broadcasting Metadata specification for
review (see below). The specification is available at
http://www.utah.edu/cpbmetadata/PBCore/ -- however, only as a
series of Web pages, which makes it problematic to include in
the packet. Something will be included in the supplementary
packet to be generated on March 11.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:03:51 +0100
From: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@bi.fhg.de>
To: DCMI Usage Board <dc-usage@jiscmail.ac.uk>
Subject: BATH Agenda: PBCore Metadata Dictionary?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting in the US wants to
use and promote the use of a "PBCore Metadata Dictionary"
based on Dublin Core [1]. They are currently (in February)
in a comment period, so this is a good opportunity to provide
feedback and perhaps nudge them in some helpful directions.

Several issues jump off the page:

1) They use the "dotty" naming style, implying they have HTML
   in mind.

2) They want to refine the CCP elements but propose to do this
   with Creator.Role, Contributor.Role, and Publisher.Role.

3) They propose to refine Relation by creating a tag
   Relation.Type, which would hold a controlled vocabulary
   of types such as Has Version -- as opposed to
   Relation.Identifier, which is to hold the identifier.

I would suggest we put this on the agenda with the goal of 
providing a someone expanded version of the above list, with 
pointers to better practice. For example, the explanation
that Diane and Rebecca are working on about the use of MARC
Relator terms could form part of that feedback.

The task of the shepherd will be to formulate the UB comments
as a two-page email to the drafters of this proposal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marcia Brooks <marcia_brooks@wgbh.org>
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 6:18 PM
Subject: Request for Input: Public Broadcasting Metadata Initiative
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Colleague,

For the past several years, a team of public radio and
television producers and managers, archivists and information
scientists, called together by the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, have been meeting to develop a single, shared
protocol for identifying and describing our rich media assets.

Administered by WGBH/Boston, the Public Broadcasting
Metadata Initiative <http://www.utah.edu/cpbmetadata/&gt; is a
cross-organizational, multi-disciplined effort to establish
a standard way to describe all public broadcasting content
(radio and television), so that it can be more easily exchanged
between colleagues, software systems, institutions, community
partners, individual citizens, etc. It is our belief that in
a rapidly evolving and deeply challenging media environment,
a well-formed Metadata Dictionary directly addresses our
core mission of serving the people of the United States. By
working hard to sensibly describe public broadcasting content
with standardized, accurate descriptions, we can facilitate
easy access and use by teachers, scholars, lifelong learners,
engaged citizens and community partners.

We are now at a point where we need to validate our work by
gaining the insights of key representatives from both within
and outside of the public broadcasting community, and we would
like to solicit your assistance in this validation process.

We have created an online survey that is linked to the Public
Broadcasting Metadata Dictionary (PBCore). Each PBCore metadata
element (which is based on the internationally-accepted
Dublin Core format) is described along with its attributes
and controlled vocabularies. Your feedback as to the clarity
and usefulness of each element will be gathered through this
online process - which can be broken up into multiple sessions
should you desire.

We hope you will be willing to help us in this important
process. Should you wish to substitute a person in
your organization or business who is more familiar with
content exchange and/or metadata issues, please feel free
to indicate their name, phone and e-mail address in your
reply to this e-mail. Please reply by February 9 to our
project consultant, Mr. Steven Vedro of Madison, Wisconsin,
at <srvconsult@charter.net>.

Upon your confirmation of participation, Steven will contact
you (or your delegate) with additional details, and you will be
welcome to participate at any time during the survey process,
which will be conducted from February 16 through February 25.

Thank you in advance for your consideration and assistance.

Marcia Brooks, Project Director, Public Broadcasting Metadata
Initiative WGBH/Boston