ISSS/WS-MMI-DC/117

Guidance information for naming, versioning, evolution, and maintenance of element declarations and application profiles

Text (only) of Draft CWA of 15 July 2004 at ftp://ftp.cenorm.be/public/ws-mmi-dc/mmidc117.htm.

CEN/ISSS Workshop on Dublin Core Metadata

Introduction

The Internet was revolutionary because it made the resources of any connected server accessible via a single global address space. The vision of a future Semantic Web further generalizes this notion of a global space of addresses to that of a global space of identifiers. According to Tim Berners-Lee, "The most fundamental specification of Web architecture, while one of the simpler, is that of the Uniform Resource Identifier, or URI. The principle that anything, absolutely anything 'on the Web' should be identified distinctly by an otherwise opaque string of characters... is core" [BERNERS-LEE].

URIs can uniquely identity not just "information resources" – Web pages, scientific pre-prints, satellite photos, video clips, and the like – but also any metadata terms used to describe those resources. As compact character strings associated with known institutional domain authorities, URIs can stand alone as self-contained references to metadata terms. While relevant to all data technologies, they are usable most directly in Web-based description technologies such as XLink, Topic Maps, and RDF.

The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) uses URIs to identify both the individual versions of terms and the Web pages documenting term sets, though these methods have not yet been documented in detail – hence the need for this CWA.

As such, this document acts as a description of emerging best practice and aims to offer this as example and guidance material for others who are faced with the same issues of naming, versioning, evolution and maintenance of metadata terms.

1 Scope

This CWA covers naming conventions for the following entities:

These entities are defined in more detail in "Section 2. Definitions".

This CWA is addressed to people who wish to understand the policies and methods by which DCMI metadata terms and term sets are identified and named and to people who may want to emulate those policies and methods for naming and identifying terms under their own maintenance authority.

 

2 Definitions

DCMI Grammatical Principles. As maintained by the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, DCMI Grammatical Principles specify a typology of metadata terms – Elements, Element Refinements, Encoding Schemes, and Vocabulary Terms – along with their interrelationships and functions [DCMI-PRINCIPLES, ABSTRACT-MODEL].

XML Namespace. "An XML namespace is a collection of names, identified by a URI reference, that are used in XML documents as element types and attribute names. The use of XML namespaces to uniquely identify metadata terms allows those terms to be unambiguously used across applications, promoting the possibility of shared semantics. DCMI adopts this mechanism for the identification of all DCMI terms" [DCMI-NAMESPACE].

Namespace URI. A Namespace URI is a Uniform Resource Identifier designating an XML Namespace.

Term, or Metadata Term. In this CWA, a metadata term is a word-like entity such as those defined by DCMI Grammatical Principles. In accordance with DCMI practice, a Term is defined with a Term Description and is identified by a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) within a DCMI Namespace.

Term Concept. A Term Concept is the basic meaning of a Term.

Term Description. A Term Description is a cluster of (mostly) human-readable attributes of a Term such as Name, Label, Definition, Comment, Date, and Status.

Term Declaration. A Term Declaration is the machine-processable representation of a Term Description in the context of a schema language.

Term Version. A Term Version is the state of a Term Description as of a specific historical moment.

Term Translation. A Term Translation is a Term Description rendered in an alternative language, such as Japanese or French.

Term Usage. A Term Usage is a description of how a previously declared Term from a Metadata Vocabulary is deployed in the context of an application. The Term Usage is a defining feature of an Application Profile.

Term Set. A Term Set is a maintained set of Terms and Term Descriptions managed as a coherent unit by an Agency. In this CWA, Term Set is a synonym for Metadata Vocabulary.

Term-Set Document. A Term-Set Document is a human-readable document listing or describing one or more Terms maintained as a Term Set. The Web pages documenting DCMI Semantic Recommendations are examples of Term Set Documents.

Term-Set Schema, or Schema Document. A Term-Set Schema is a document containing a machine-processable description of a Term Set.

Application Profile. An Application Profile – or in this CWA a Dublin Core Application Profile (DCAP) – is a declaration specifying, at a minimum, which metadata terms an organization, information provider, or user community uses within a particular application.

Agency. An Agency is an entity responsible for managing one or more Term Sets.

3 Basic approach

When the Dublin Core was first drafted in 1995, discussion focused on the names of the core elements – short strings such as "title" and "date". As the Dublin Core came to be considered for use with the emerging technologies of XML and RDF, discussion turned towards the notion of a "namespace". As a concept "namespace" was, and remains today, rather slippery. For the purposes of this CWA, suffice it to say that "namespace" captures the notion of a clearly identified set of terms. DCMI began to experiment with using URIs to identify the Dublin Core "namespace" in 1997. The growth of DCMI's namespace (or namespaces) with the addition of several dozen qualifiers in 2000 forced a clarification of various issues related to naming, identifying, and versioning DCMI terms. In 2001, the approach, which had evolved, was articulated in a formal DCMI Namespace Policy [DCMI-NAMESPACE].

The DCMI Namespace Policy declares three "DCMI namespaces" – identifiers (URIs) for three DCMI term sets such as http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ to designate the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set Version 1.1. URIs for individual DCMI terms are formed by appending the character-string Name of the term to the URI for its DCMI namespace. This mechanism is discussed in more detail below.

Aside from describing how DCMI terms are assigned identifiers, the namespace policy acknowledges that terms can and will change over time and focuses on articulating the consequences of change for unique identity. "Minor" or "substantive" errata may be corrected without consequence for URIs. Changes of a semantic nature, however, such as significant changes in the wording of a definition, must trigger the creation of a new term with a new URI. To support the future interpretation of legacy metadata, the Namespace Policy commits DCMI to maintaining formal documentation for all assigned URIs – even for terms that might some day be assigned a status of "obsolete".

Within the limits of the Namespace Policy, the DCMI vocabularies are subject to growth and change over time – new terms are added, a bibliographic reference cited in a usage comment may be updated, the status assigned to a term may change. The fifteen-element Dublin Core was initially versioned as a set and, as noted above, the version number "1.1" is hard-coded into the string used as the URI of its DCMI namespace.

As of July 2000, new terms were issued without such a version number because the model of periodic, batched releases seemed a bad fit to a vocabulary that was expected to grow by increment. Nonetheless, the ability to reference a term set as of a given date was seen as potentially useful for library automation contracts, translations of DCMI term sets into another languages, or the future interpretation of legacy metadata. The pragmatic solution to this problem has been to version both individual terms (which evolve at different rates) and Web documents describing batches of terms as of a particular date (which are updated whenever a term is added or anything else in the term set changes).

The idea behind a metadata term may be thought of as a Term Concept. As discussed below, a Term Concept is what DCMI identifies with its Namespace Policy. For example, the Dublin Core element Subject is identified with the URI http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/subject. This is the identifier for Subject that metadata implementers (if they use URIs at all) are supposed to use in their metadata.

A Term is described with a Term Description – a cluster of (mostly) human-readable attributes such as Name, Label, Definition, Comment, Date, and Status. The Term Description for Subject is maintained by DCMI and published in various forms – in a Web document, an RDF schema, and an XML schema, each with its own URI. When the Term Description is represented in a machine-processable schema language, it is referred to as a Term Declaration.

A Term Description, however, can evolve over time – the status of an element can change, a comment can be reworded for clarity, a bibliographical reference can be updated. Each successive historical state of a Term Description can be seen as a Term Version. DCMI currently identifies these successive Term Versions with URIs, though those URIs are not yet supported by official DCMI policy.

The distinction between Term Concepts and Term Versions is roughly analogous to the distinction made in the ISO/IEC 11179 standard for describing metadata elements in the context of metadata registries (see Appendix A).

The method described here in effect treats Terms analogously to how W3C and DCMI treat documents – e.g., with a URI for a notional entity that may evolve in the form of separately identified historical versions (this analogy is described in more detail below). The limits within which a Term may evolve and still refer to the same Term Concept are described in the DCMI Namespace Policy [DCMI-NAMESPACE]. In essence, if a Term evolves in ways that are semantically incompatible with the Term Concept, it must be considered a new Term and given a new URI.

A Term Translation – a Term Description rendered in an alternative language, such as Japanese or French – is something that is "about" a Term Concept but does not translate that Term Concept directly. Rather, it translates a Term Description. Specifically, it translates a particular Term Version – a Term Description at a given point in time. In other words, a given Japanese translation of the element Subject may be about the Term Concept Subject (http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/subject), but it actually "translates" a specific Term Version (http://dublincore.org/usage/terms/history/#subject-002). Both assertions ("about" and "translates") seem necessary to fully express what is intended.

Another type of assertion "about" another term is being developed in the context of discussion about Dublin Core Application Profiles (DCAPs): the Term Usage. A Term Usage is an assertion that a given application or set of metadata "uses" a term (as identified by its URI). A Term Usage may optionally be annotated with a Term Usage Description – various sorts of usage notes such as context-specific clarifications of definition, local cataloguing rules, constraints on cardinality and the like.

Whenever anything in any Term Description of any Term Set changes, DCMI publishes multiple types of documentation reflecting those changes. At present, DCMI publishes the updated information both as Web documents and as machine-processable schemas.

In sum, what we refer to as a Term is identified with multiple URIs serving different purposes:

In contrast, all Term Sets and Application Profiles, including Web documents and machine-processable representations thereof, are identified and versioned by analogy both to the versioning of documents by W3C and to the versioning of Terms described above – i.e., by URI for the resource in a generic sense (the namespace-policy-supported URI for a Term or Latest Version for a document) as well as for a specific historical version of the same.

 

 

4 Naming and identification methods in detail

4.1 A metadata term in the abstract (Term Concept)

DCMI began to experiment with URIs in 1997, which led to the formulation in 2001 of a formal Namespace Policy [DCMI-NAMESPACE]. This policy declares URIs for three DCMI namespaces:

http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/

http://purl.org/dc/terms/

http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/

These URIs designate (respectively) the fifteen-element Dublin Core, all other DCMI elements and qualifiers, and a controlled vocabulary of values for the Dublin Core element Type. A URI is constructed for a DCMI term by appending its character-string Name to the URI of a DCMI namespace. For example, the URIs:

http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title

http://purl.org/dc/terms/extent

http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Image

These URIs respectively identify Title (one of the fifteen "core" elements), Extent (an element refinement) and Image (a term in the DCMI Type Vocabulary).

The policies governing the formation of Names for different types of Terms, particularly with respect to case sensitivity, are described in the "DCMI Policy on Naming Terms" [NAMING-POLICY].

4.2 A historical version of a Term (Term Version)

Individual terms are versioned by creating a snapshot of their attributes whenever any one of their attributes changes and assigning to that snapshot a URI such as the following:

http://dublincore.org/usage/terms/history/#Image-002

http://dublincore.org/usage/terms/history/#Image-001

Although the DCMI Namespace Policy does not currently support such URIs, they effectively function as identifiers for successive versions of a term (in this case Image). At present, these URIs resolve to anchors in a Web document that holds a periodically updated snapshot of all past and present versions of all DCMI terms [DCMI-TERMS-HISTORY].

As of the writing of this CWA, clear practice is yet to emerge for the identification of Term Usages, but it seems probable that they will be handled by analogy to Terms.

4.3 Sets of terms and documentational forms thereof

All documentational forms for Term Sets – Term-Set Documents and Term-Set Schemas – and Application Profiles are identified and versioned following the example set by the World Wide Web Consortium. For example, W3C identifies any one version of its "RDF Primer" with two URIs, with a pointer to an immediately prior version:

Latest Version: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/

This Version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/

Previous Version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-rdf-primer-20031215/

In this example, the Latest Version URI designates the resource at a notional or abstract level; the This Version URI designates the specific historical version one is looking at, which may or may not be linked at any given time to the Latest Version URI; and the Previous Version URI designates a version immediately prior to This Version.

By analogy, Web pages documenting DCMI term sets are identified by a Latest Version and an Identifier (like This Version) with a reference to the immediately prior or immediately following historical version (Replaces or Replaced By). For example, the March 2003 version of the DCMI Metadata Terms document shows the following:

Latest Version: http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/

Identifier: http://dublincore.org/documents/2003/03/04/dcmi-terms/

Replaced By: http://dublincore.org/documents/2003/11/19/dcmi-terms/

The Identifier resolves to the permanently archived and unchanging version of the document displayed, Replaced By resolves to the next version that followed, and Latest Version resolves to a continually updated pointer on the DCMI Web site to the most up-to-date version of DCMI Metadata Terms.

Term-Set Schemas maintained by DCMI are identified only by the URI of the specific historical version of a schema, such as in the following example of RDF schemas declaring the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set:

http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13/dces

http://dublincore.org/2001/08/14/dces

http://dublincore.org/2002/08/13/dces

http://dublincore.org/2003/03/24/dces

Best practice has yet to establish itself for Dublin Core Application Profiles, but it seems probable that they will be handled by analogy to Web documents (i.e., including an identifier for the notional Latest Version) and to schemas (i.e., without an identifier for the notional Latest Version), depending on whether the profiles are published in the form of Web documents or as machine-processable schemas.

5 References

[ABSTRACT-MODEL] Andy Powell, Mikael Nilsson, Ambjörn Naeve, Pete Johnston. DCMI Abstract Model. http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/abstract-model/.

[BERNERS-LEE] Tim Berners-Lee, "Web Architecture from 50,000 feet". http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Architecture.html.

[CWA14855] "Dublin Core Application Profile Guidelines", http://www.cenorm.be/isss/cwa14855/.

[DCMI-NAMESPACE] Namespace Policy for the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-namespace/.

[DCMI-PRINCIPLES] DCMI Grammatical Principles, http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/principles/.

[DCMI-TERMS] DCMI Metadata Terms, http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/.

[DCMI-TERMS-HISTORY] http://dublincore.org/usage/terms/history/

[ISO11179] http://metadata-stds.org/11179/

[ISO 11179-1] ISO/IEC 11179-1: Information technology -Specification and standardization of data elements - Part 1: Framework for the specification and standardization of data elements, 1999 edition. Now under revision, see http://metadata-stds.org/11179/

[ISO 11179-3] ISO/IEC 11179-3, Information technology - Specification and standardization of data elements - Part 3: Basic attributes of data elements, 1994 edition.

[ISO 11179-6] ISO/IEC 11179-6, Information technology - Specification and standardization of data elements - Part 6: Registration of data elements, 1997 edition. Now under revision, see http://metadata-stds.org/11179/

[NAMING-POLICY] DCMI Policy on Naming Terms, http://dublincore.org/documents/naming-policy/.

 

Appendix A. Versioning of data elements in ISO 11179

ISO/IEC 11179 is a multipart standard specifying a framework, attribute sets, naming principles, and a Registration Authority structure to support the operation of metadata registries [ISO11179]. In ISO 11179, a data element is defined as "A unit of data for which the definition, identification, representation and permissible values are specified by means of a set of attributes". A data element concept is defined as "A concept that can be represented in the form of a data element, described independently of any particular representation" [ISO 11179-3].

ISO 11179 takes a "data element" as the fundamental unit of data managed by an organization. The standard differentiates a data element concept from its representation. This has advantages for versioning, as the underlying data concept can remain unchanged whilst being linked to data elements with various identifiers and versions.

In ISO 11179, a number of attributes can be used to specify a data element. Such attributes are grouped into categories such as Identifying, Definitional, and Relational Attributes. One of the Identifying attributes is "Identifier" and another is "Version". ISO 11179-6 defines a Version as "Identification of an issue of a data element specification in a series of evolving data element specifications within a Registration Authority" and associates such versions with version identifiers.

ISO 11179-6 [ISO 11179-6] recommends practice for change control at the level of data element and version attribute. The standard recommends that the data element identifier for an existing data element should change when the data element "is modified in such a way as to change the meaning of the data element or the representation form of the potential values of the data element". An example is given whereby changes to the Definition might trigger a new data element identifier, although editorial changes to the definition would not cause generation of a new data element, as long as the essential meaning expressed by the definition remains the same. Similarly, changes to the Form of Representation would require the assignment of a new Data Element Identifier, though changes to the value of administrative attributes might not necessitate generation of a new Data Element Identifier.

The standard recommends assignment of a new version identifier when any attribute value, other than one requiring a new Data Element Identifier, changes.

Appendix B. Identification and versioning of elements in IEEE/LOM

The Learning Object Metadata standard (IEEE 1484.12.1-2002) assigns names to data elements according to a naming convention. For example, the name "7.2.2:Relation.Resource.Description" indicates that

The complete name, then, refers to the innermost sub-element.

As explained in Clause 4.2 of the LOM standard, the name is used to refer to the data element only. Indeed, Clause 4.7 specifies: "This standard does not define tokens for element names or vocabulary values. It is expected that such tokens will be defined in bindings of this standard."

One such binding – the LOM XML binding (IEEE 1484.12.3) – is currently being finalized. This binding does define actual tokens to be used for the XML elements, which correspond to LOM data elements. All such tokens are grouped in a schema "common/elementNames.xsd". Not surprisingly, the tokens used in the LOM XML binding correspond directly with the names used in the LOM standard.

The LOM standard does not only define names for data elements. It also defines vocabulary values for data elements that are of type vocabulary. As explained in Clause 4.4 of the LOM standard: "Vocabularies are defined for some data elements. A vocabulary is a recommended list of appropriate values. Other values, not present in the list, may be used as well. However, metadata that rely on the recommended values will have the highest degree of semantic interoperability; i.e., the likelihood that such metadata will be understood by other end users or systems is highest." As mentioned above, the LOM standard does not define the token to be used to represent the vocabulary values! That information can again be found in the binding document, as in for instance the LOM XML binding.

The general approach in the LOM standard to versioning is that the standard may evolve with different versions of the complete "base schema" (the actual data element structure defined in LOM). There are no specific provisions to evolve different versions of particular data elements.

Indeed, the data element 3.3:Meta-Metadata.MetadataSchema represents "The name and version of the authoritative specification used to create this metadata instance. NOTE: This data element may be user selectable or system generated. If multiple values are provided, then the metadata instance shall conform to multiple metadata schemas."

In line with this general spirit, the LOM XML binding defines the LOM namespace as "http://ltsc.ieee.org/xsd/LOMv1p0": in other words, the namespace includes the versioning information, and names of new versions of data elements would belong to a different namespace.

For vocabulary values, the LOM standard includes a source that can include versioning information. The value of vocabulary data elements is a pair (source, value). If the source is "LOMv1.0", then the value space is described by the LOM standard. If the source is not "LOMv1.0", then users and implementers are encouraged to create vocabularies that do not conflict with this standard. If a vocabulary is used that intersects with the LOMv1.0 vocabulary, then only the values not included in this standard should have a source that is not "LOMv1.0". This will maximize semantic interoperability for the values that are included in this standard.