innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices

Topic: Review of application profiles
Agenda frozen: 2004-10-02 07:25, Saturday
Archived: 2004-11-10
Maintainer: Tom Baker
Latest version:
See also:
Note: If any of the links below are broken, please refer to 
                   the meeting packet
                   for copies of the key documents discussed at the meeting.

Shepherd: Tom

In Bath, we undertook a partial review of PBCore, the
US National Public Broadcasting metadata dictionary [1].
This resulted in grateful acknowledgement of the DCMI Usage
Board on the part of NPR [2].

In Bath, we reaffirmed that the Usage Board can assign
the the status of "conforming" to an Application Profile
based on a significantly more thorough review focused on
elements and element refinements at the point of review.
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").

The documents describing this process are:


As of September 2004, the Application Profile furthest along in
the pipeline is DC-Lib, a new version of which was issued on
13 September 2004 [3]. According to the DC-Lib editor Robina
Clayphan, there are two obvious areas where clarification is
needed from the Usage Board before the AP can be completed
and submitted for a formal review:

    1) How to characterize the refinements for Contributor
       - I believe there is an ongoing UB discussion
       about a subset of LC roles to refine Contributor.
       Rather than list them all as refinements in DC-Lib
       I give a notional URL of the list. Notional as the
       subset does not yet exist as far as I know - is such a
       subset in preparation by the UB? Is this an acceptable
       way to declare these refinements in an AP?

    2) How to describe/define encoding schemes in the AP.
       In the AP you will see I refer to encoding schemes
       in the table describing the element it qualifies and
       have then created a section at the end of the AP with a
       table per encoding scheme following the model Pete uses.
       I came across a few difficulties which I detail below.
       This is all part of the ongoing issue about registering
       encoding schemes.

In Shanghai, we should discuss these issues and decide whether
we think the DC-Lib profile will be ready to be reviewed at
the next UB meeting following Shanghai and what preparation
(shepherding, public comment periods) that would entail.