innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices

Topic: DCMI Extension Namespaces and Review of Application Profiles
See also:
Created: 2005-05-12
Modified: 2005-05-16 17:28, Monday
Maintainer: Tom Baker

In Washington, we need to clarify -- in terms of policy,
process, and principle -- the context within which the Usage
Board will participate in the creation and maintenance of
DCMI Extension Namespaces (EXT-NSes).

According to the proposal [1], terms would normally be put
into a EXT-NS by being part of an Application Profile (DCAP)
developed by a DCMI Strategic Activity and put forward for
review by the Usage Board. If a DCAP were found by the Usage
Board to be "conformant" with the DCMI Abstract Model, any
terms in that DCAP which had not yet been declared could be put
into an EXT-NS. By definition, a DCMI Strategic Activity would
be sponsored by an organization willing to share maintenance
responsibility for the terms with DCMI, and the commitment
of DCMI to maintain terms in an EXT-NS over the long term
would be subject to declared limitations and processes.

We should discuss, if only briefly, some of the open issues
with regard to the implementation of EXT-NSes. These issues,
elaborated in [2], include:

-- Use of the term "namespace" (Namespace Policy and Abstract Model)
-- Naming issues: use of acronyms or date-stamps in URI strings
-- Batching of terms into separate DCMI Extension Namespaces
-- Scope of EXT-NSes: to include controlled vocabularies?
-- DCMI maintenance commitment and responsibility
-- Maintenance role of outside organizations

More importantly, we need to clarify by what processes and
criteria we will undertake the review of DCAPs by which terms
will be put into an EXT-NS. In order to do this, we should
all read (or skim):

-- The EXT-NS proposal [1] and issues list [2]
-- The DCMI Namespace Policy, which will need to be extended [3]
-- Relevant Usage Board process documents [4,5,6]
-- Expectations as to the documentational format of DCAPs [7]
-- Naming and identification of terms in an EXT-NS [8,9]
-- The Abstract Model [10] and clarifications thereof [14]
-- In particular, usability of XML elements as DCMI elements [11,12,13]
-- Prior experience in the UB on reviewing DCAPs [15]

After discussing these issues in general, we will look
specifically at the DCAPs being developed by the Collection
Description and Libraries working groups in order to determine,
in more detail, how such a review would work in practice.

[1] DCMI Extension Namespaces proposal
[2] Issues list
[3] DCMI Namespace Policy
[4] DCMI Usage Board Review of Application Profiles
[5] DCMI Usage Board Process: "Proposals for Registration of Application Profiles"
[6] Procedure for Approval of DCMI Metadata Terms and Recommendations
[7] Dublin Core Application Profile Guidelines
[8] DCMI Policy on Naming Terms
[9] Guidelines for Assigning Identifiers to Metadata Terms
[10] DCMI Abstract Model (DCMI Recommendation) 
[11] XML, RDF, and DCAPs (no status yet)
[12] DCMI Mixing and Matching FAQ (first draft)
[13] DC-Libraries and DC-Architecture discussion about using XML elements
[14] Element Refinement in Dublin Core Metadata (draft DCMI Recommended Resource)
[15] Review of PBCore, June 2004