innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices

Title: Revisions to the DCMI Process document
Identifier: http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/10/ISSUES/process/
See also: http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/10/ISSUES/
Created: 2004-09-12
Agenda frozen: 2004-10-02 07:25, Saturday
Archived: 2004-11-10
Maintainer: Tom Baker
Note: If any of the links below are broken, please refer to 
                   the meeting packet
                   (http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/10/Meeting-packet.pdf) 
                   for copies of the key documents discussed at the meeting.

Shepherds: Diane and Stuart

In Bath, there was an action on Diane and Stuart to revise
the Process document in various ways. These included the
following major points (along with alot of minor points):

-- The UB will continue to accept proposals for DCMI encoding
   schemes through traditional channels. Diane and Stuart will
   formulate criteria for proposals and explain the UB stance.
   From BATH TOPIC 2 (on Encoding Schemes) there was a separate
   action on Rebecca to write a one-pager explaining what we
   learned from the discussion of the potential encoding schemes
   ATT, TGM2, SICI, ISBN, ISSN, DOI, GAC, and MARC Country Codes.
   However, this should perhaps be folded into the UB stance
   formulated by Diane and Stuart.

-- The UB felt that proposals for elements and element
   refinements which were intended to make statements about
   specific resource types would be acceptable. If the
   resource type addressed by such a proposal were limited
   to a specific domain, its proposed status should be
   "conforming" as opposed to "recommended". Stuart and
   Diane would weave this into the process document at
   http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/process/#four.

-- In Bath, we reaffirmed that the Usage Board can assign
   the the status of "conforming" to an Application Profile
   based on a review focused on elements and element
   refinements at the point of review [1,2,3]. The AP
   designated as "conforming" (i.e., a snapshot of the AP
   document at the time reviewed) would be archived on the
   DCMI Website. Changes to the AP should result in a new AP
   and resubmission to the UB (i.e., for new "time stamp").
   Stuart and Diane would change the process document to
   reflect this "time stamp".

In August, Stuart posted a draft incorporating most of the
necessary changes [4], and there was some discussion of
details on the list [5].

In September, there was some discussion about the possibility
of modifying the definition of dc:date, and Tom noticed that
there seems not to be an explicit process for submitting and
deciding on such proposals [9].

In Shanghai, we should aim at approving the changes already
made and identify any changes still needed. Specifically,
further changes to the Process document will be discussed in
relation to the approval of Encoding Schemes generally [6,7,8].

[1] http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/process/#six
[2] http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/profiles
[3] http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/03/cwa14855-20040210.pdf
[4] http://www.bi.fhg.de/People/Thomas.Baker/public/2004-08-27.process.html
[5] http://www.bi.fhg.de/People/Thomas.Baker/public/2004-09-01.email-digest.txt
[6] http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/10/registration/
[7] http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/10/nlm/
[8] http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/10/iso8601/
[9] http://www.bi.fhg.de/People/Thomas.Baker/public/2004-09-16.amending-definitions.txt