innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices

Topic: Collection Description Application Profile
See also:
Created: 2005-05-11
Modified: 2005-05-16 17:28, Monday
Maintainer: Tom Baker

The Collection Description Application Profile will be the
first full formal review by the Usage Board of an application
profile, so in Washington we should aim at:

-- defining which aspects of the profile we will review
   and with what criteria;
-- who can shepherd which aspects of the review;
-- what interaction with the working group, and with
   what deadlines, will be necessary in order to get the
   profile onto the agenda in September.

To prepare, we should all read: 

-- the "summary" version of the profile [1]. I have included
   the full version in the packet as reference [2]. (Note:
   QNames with shaded background are still in need of URIs.)

-- Pete's summary of open or unresolved issues with regard to
   the draft profile [3].

-- collection-description-related terms approved by the Usage
   Board in 2004 [4]. (Note the reference in this decision
   text to "the ambiguity inherent in the existing usage
   of dc:identifier"!)

-- collection-description-related terms approved by the Usage
   Board in Shanghai which have not yet been announced [5],
   as these terms could potentially be given URIs in a DCMI
   Extension Namespace. We should discuss in Madrid any
   advantages or disadvantages for doing so.

-- In theory, an DCMI Extension Namespace would provide a
   place to declare (i.e. assign URIs to) the terms in
   controlled vocabularies. Finding a home for these
   vocabularies has in fact been a crucial obstacle to
   the finalization of the Collection Description AP.
   The vocabularies in question are included here [6,7,8,9].

-- We should be aware that the WG is considering whether
   terms would need to be declared as skos:ConceptSchemes
   in addition to being declared as "classes of concepts"
   (Vocabulary Encoding Scheme). This would mean more URIs.