innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices
Topic: Ongoing Revision of the DCMI Process document
See also: http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2005/05/washdc/
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
-- [SEE 4.3.1.] Add wording to 4.3.1 of UB Process document
to indicate that the criteria are not 'exclusive'
-- [SEE 188.8.131.52.] 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 184.108.40.206.1. & 220.127.116.11.2.]
Need to update the UB Process document accordingly.
-- [SEE 18.104.22.168.] 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 22.214.171.124.] 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
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
-- http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/approval/ 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
Note: Andy's "Guidelines for Assigning Identifiers
to Metadata Terms" is reproduced in this packet under
-- 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.