innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices
Title: A lightweight registry of (existing) encoding schemes
Modified: 2004-06-03 18:11, Thursday
Maintainer: Tom Baker
Latest version: http://www.bi.fhg.de/People/Thomas.Baker/ISSUES/registration-lightweight/
See also: http://www.bi.fhg.de/People/Thomas.Baker/ISSUES/
Until the Usage Board meeting in Bath in March 2004,
the issue "registration of encoding schemes" referred
to a process and tools for expediting the creation of
DCMI-maintained encoding schemes identified with URIs to be
maintained in accordance with the DCMI Namespace Policy.
An analysis of steps which would need to be undertaken
in order to put such a registry in place can be found at
In Bath, the Usage Board decided to consider an alternative
model: that of a very lightweight informational "registry"
of existing encoding schemes (i.e., of URIs usable as DCMI
Encoding Schemes). Tom was tasked with presenting this idea
to the Directorate for discussion.
As this registry would not involve the creation of new terms,
it would not be operated by the Usage Board, but by DCMI as
Putting into place even a lightweight registry, however, is
not a trivial undertaking. At a minimum, it would involve
the following tasks and commitments:
1. Work with Harry to improve the interface and
functionality of the Web-based
registration tool [WEB-TOOL], see
2. Update "Guidelines for registration of Vocabulary
Encoding Schemes", see
This document would need to explain what is means to
have an existing URI, and what it means for that URI to
be usable as a DCMI Encoding Scheme. This would need
to be written up in simple, readable documentation.
This explanatory text could be folded into the start
page for the Web tool [WEB-TOOL], which currently
provides user guidance on using the tool, which would
require coordination with Harry on editing a single
Web page. Or the information could be split out into
a separate document -- whatever seems friendliest
for users. Either way, we should ensure that all
Web pages of relevance to the project of registering
encoding schemes be fully cross-referenced with all
of the other relevant Web pages.
3. Clarify the process of vetting proposals:
exactly who needs to do what to verify and evaluate
a submission, what follow-up actions they need to
take, what needs to be documented and where. Then,
to document that process appropriately (see 3.1).
4. Set up a JISCMAIL list to use as an
archive of tasks undertaken for 2.2.
5. Manage the project:
-- coordinate and motivate the people who will
check, evaluate, and approve submissions to the
-- make announcements to DC-GENERAL.
6. Formulate a sustainable persistence policy for the
[WEB-TOOL] Vocabulary Scheme Registration [a Web-based tool],