innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices

Topic: Definitions and Labels
See also:
Created: 2005-05-13
Modified: 2005-05-16 17:28, Monday
Maintainer: Tom Baker

1. Wording of Definitions in light of Abstract Model [Andy]

    In Washington, we should decide on possible changes, as 
    outlined in [1]. We should also consider the impact of 
    such changes on standards.

2. Labels for Element Refinements

    Pete has noted in the past that some of the labels on
    our original element refinements are not as clear as
    they might be. The current labels follow the current
    names (which were assigned in the 'dotted concatenation'
    era - sometime pre-neolithic I think!) - but there is no
    requirement that they do.

    Here's a set of possible revisions to the current labels:

    Alternative -> Alternative Title
    Available -> Date Available
    Created -> Date Created
    Issued -> Date Issued
    Modified -> Date Modified
    Spatial -> Spatial Coverage
    Temporal -> Temporal Coverage
    Valid -> Date Valid

3. Labels for Encoding Schemes

    The labels for some of our encoding schemes are also not very helpful -
    particularly to people outside the library domain. Here's some possible

    DDC - > Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC)
    IMT -> Internet Media Type
    LCC - > Library of Congress Classification (LCC)
    LCSH -> Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH)
    MeSH -> Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
    TGN -> Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names (TGN)
    UDC -> Universal Decimal Classification (UDC)
    URI -> Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
    W3C-DTF -> W3C Date Time Formats

4. Definitions for Encoding Schemes

    Definitions for things like DDC could be improved.
    Currently, they simply repeat the name or the label.

5. Other labels

   a. "Subject and Keywords" to "Subject or Keywords" (or 
      even "Subject Classification or Keywords") -- on the 
      basis that the value is one or the other.

   b. "Resource Type" to "Type" (on the basis that this 
      label is the only one to refer to the Resource 
      explicitly - i.e. we don't use things like 'Resource Title'.

   c. "Rights Management" to "Rights" (on the basis that Rights 
      Management sounds too much like DRM, which dc:rights really 
      isn't about - dc:rights is about asserting rights, but
      not about the M !).

   d. "Resource Identifier" to "Identifier".