innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices

Title: The back burner
Main agenda:
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 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
    Process document.

    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).