innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices

Topic: Collection Description Application Profile
Main agenda:
Modified: 2005-09-04 16:10, Sunday

Shepherd: Andrew Wilson

In Washington (May 2005), we decided to review the
DC-COLLECTIONS profile in Madrid (September 2005). We had
decided to put it up for a one-month comment period on
DC-GENERAL in order to be able to give it formal status,
but the profile was not done in time to do that.

We agreed in Washington that the review of new terms and
APs should be to determine conformance to the AM or not.
The review of the AP will also result in a "review report"
-- we need to determine the level of comment in that report.

Required reading:
-- Dublin Core Collection Description Application Profile Summary

-- Dublin Core Collection Description Application Profile

-- 2005-08-25: Comments from Pete Johnston:

-- 2005-08-16: Mailing-list discussion

-- 2005-06-13: Decision on a proposal for new terms for describing collections

-- 2004-09-03: Decision on a proposal for a Collection Description profile
    (Note the reference in this decision text to "the ambiguity inherent in the 
    existing usage of dc:identifier".)

What to do:
-- The original idea was that UB members would read and digest
   the profile ahead of time and prepare small position papers
   by September 1, but we ran out of time to do it this way.
    o Overall shepherd Andrew
    o Evaluate terms against Abstract Model Andrew, Andy
    o Check comments Akira
    o Check documentation Tom
    o Check community buy-in Andrew
    o Check functional requirements Tom

Related ongoing actions
-- ACTION (ongoing, May 2005) Diane, Stuart: Process-related:
   Define other statuses (e.g. "Recommended") and what they
   mean, with decision trees. Need documentation for minimal
   proposal of new term.

-- ACTION (ongoing, May 2005): Longer-term roadmap needed
   of where APs can go, e.g. WG, conformance evaluation,
   back to WG, evaluation for status of Recommended.