innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices
Title: The back burner
Main agenda: http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2005/09/madrid/
Modified: 2005-09-04 16:10, Sunday
Encoding scheme types
Andy and Pete want to write a position paper distinguishing
vocabulary encoding schemes and syntax encoding schemes. See:
Endorsement mechanism for non-DCMI encoding schemes
After testing a Web interface for the "registration"
of encoding schemes, we backed off from going down the
road of having DCMI declare and maintain purl.org URIs for
others' vocabularies in favor of encouraging other people
to coin URIs to identify their own vocabularies. As a
mechanism for getting those URIs into the DCMI registry
(and more generally as a way for people to publicize their
vocabularies through DCMI listings), we figured we could
devise a way to "endorse" the non-DCMI URIs thus created
(in effect to say, "DCMI agrees that this URI can be used
as an encoding scheme in Dublin Core metadata").
There is an ongoing action on Tom, Stuart, and Diane to
draft the policy and process documents necessary to support
the assignment of such endorsements by the Usage Board
(or at any rate by DCMI). Diane and Stuart have put a
placeholder for this in the Usage Board Administrative
The assignment of such endorsements seems related to the
endorsement of assertions by Library of Congress that
MARC Relator terms are sub-properties of dc:contributor.
Pete agreed to help define a mechanism for expressing
such endorsements in RDF. Once the policy framework for
endorsement is clear, its expression in RDF could perhaps
be discussed by the DCMI Architecture Working Group
(or by its DC RDF task force).