innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices

Topic: Ongoing Revision of the DCMI Process document
See also:
Created: 2005-05-11
Modified: 2005-05-16 17:28, Monday
Maintainer: Tom Baker

Shepherds: Diane and Stuart

On 2005-05-05, Diane and Stuart agreed to make an interim
update of the Process document for (brief) discussion in
Washington. This update would cover some of the pending
changes, recognizing that the DCMI Extension Namespaces and
DCAPs will entail further changes.

This interim update can be found at:

Changes reflected in the above draft include:

   -- [SEE new Preface] Add wording to the UB Process document 
      referring to the DCMI Mission Statement, e.g. to section 
      4.3 onwards.

   -- [SEE 4.3.1.] Add wording to 4.3.1 of UB Process document 
      to indicate that the criteria are not 'exclusive'

   -- [SEE] Agreed that the announcement of the start of the
      comment period should come from the shepherd and should
      say that comments can go to either the appropriate WG
      mailing list, the dc-general mailing list or privately to
      the shepherd and should explicitly ask for indications
      of support for the proposal. [SEE &] 
      Need to update the UB Process document accordingly.

   -- [SEE] Proposals for new terms should be moved to 
      the DCMI Web site, and given DCMI page headers and a status 
      of 'Proposed term'. when they are accepted by the UB
      (i.e. before comment period starts).

   -- [SEE] Add wording somewhere in UB Process document to
      indicate that the recording of decisions should be
      rich enough that the rationale for decisions is clear
      to others.

Changes to be done at a later date:

   -- Revisit 3.2 of UB Process document at some stage
      in light of Scope Statement (see Andrew's action).

   -- Agreed various changes to the UB Process document
      based on the email from Tom in the meeting packet
      (Stuart has detailed record of changes required).

   -- Add a new status of 'Endorsed' (for LoC statements
      about MARC Relator terms) and document processes related
      to endorsement of such assertions.

   -- Clarify use of the status "Registered" now that UB is no
      longer accepting proposals for Vocabulary Encoding

   -- Need a process for handling changes to definitions
      such as that contemplated for Date.

   -- Note: Need to consider future possibilities for giving a
      status of 'Conforming' to terms in external namespaces.

   -- Approval Process Overview: The document
      'Procedure for approval of DCMI Metadata Terms and
      Recommendations' is maintained by the Managing Director
      as a high-level summary aimed at a general audience

   -- is
      a one-stop source of the overall procedure. This
      document links to the more detailed UB process document.
      The UB process document should now say that the UB will
      inform Managing Director every time there is a major
      revision of UB process so that the Managing Director
      can keep the Approval document in sync.

   -- Endorsement mechanism for non-DCMI encoding
      schemes. We expect that the NLM proposal will be
      the last proposal to assign a DCMI URI to an external
      vocabulary. In the medium term, we need to develop
      a policy, process, mechanism and documentation for
      endorsing non-DCMI encoding scheme URIs (same endorsement
      mechanism as for endorsing non-DCMI properties) and
      develop guidelines to help external organisations/people
      declare URIs for non-DCMI vocabulary encoding schemes.
      ACTION (medium-term): Stuart, Diane, Tom, Pete (for
      RDF mechanism).

      Note: Andy's "Guidelines for Assigning Identifiers
      to Metadata Terms" is reproduced in this packet under
      Topic 2.

   -- Statement of DCMI approach to endorsing vocabulary
      encoding schemes. We need a public statement of the
      new approach. ACTION: Tom to formulate short statement
      for discussion on UB list and in telecons.

   -- Longer-term, we need to clarify the role of the
      proposer as a participant in the Usage Board meeting.
      They can and should serve as a resource for explaining
      the proposal, but it has been suggested that we consider
      asking participants to step out for the discussion.