innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices
Title: Review of DCMI Application Profiles
Main agenda: http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2005/09/madrid/
Archived as: http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2005/09/profile-review/profile-review.pdf
Modified: 2005-09-04 16:10, Sunday
One very important goal of the preliminary review of the
application profile for Collection Description is to clarify
the set of policies and guidelines used for the review of
application profiles generally.
1. The review process
1.1 Discussion on review of profiles, May 2005
To prepare for the review, start by re-reading very carefully
these excerpts from the meeting notes, Washington, May
2005, summarizing our discussion about the review of profiles.
1.2 DCMI-compliant 'term' decision tree - draft
This draft decision tree is about evaluating terms for compliance
with the DCMI Abstract Model (see 3.3, not included in packet).
1.3 Dublin Core Application Profile Guidelines
Some changes are needed in this document:
-- There is an action on Tom to edit these guidelines
to strengthen the requirement of assigning URIs to any
non-previously-existing terms. The draft "Guidelines
for Assigning Identifiers to Metadata Terms" (see 3.4,
not included in packet) could be reviewed for DCMI status
and cited here in this regard.
-- Diane has also raised some issues on the controlled
vocabularies used to specify obligation (see 1.5, not
included in packet).
-- The document should perhaps summarize and cite the
draft "XML, RDF, and DCAPs" (see 3.5, not
included in this packet), which describes the
differences between DC elements, XML elements, and RDF
-- The document should also summarize and point to "Element
Refinement in Dublin Core Metadata" a DCMI Recommended
Resource (see 3.6, not included in this packet).
-- Other changes to the Guidelines may be necessary to
bring this into line with the Abstract Model (e.g., to
distinguish between Value Strings and Value URIs, as is
done in the draft Collection Description profile).
1.4 DCMI Mixing and Matching FAQ - draft
Another draft checklist, related to "XML, RDF, and DCAPs"
(see 3.5, not included in this packet), which "attempts to
answer some of the practical questions that implementers
ask when faced with a desire to incorporate their existing
XML metadata semantics into DCMI metadata applications".
1.5 Review of PBCore, June 2004
This is the result of the first experience of the
Usage Board with reviewing an application profile.
The review was not as thorough as future reviews are
currently intended to be. The review did not result
in endorsement or the assignment of status -- only in
feedback to the developers of PBCore.
1.5 Diane on controlled vocabularies specifying obligation
2. Policies and processes
2.1 DCMI Usage Board Review of Application Profiles
This short document has not been edited in awhile
but could be used as a placeholder for more extensive
policies and guidelines, unless we were to conclude they
should be documented elsewhere, e.g., in the Usage Board
2.2 DCMI Usage Board Administrative Process
This is a four-page excerpt of the relevant parts of
the draft Process document.
2.3 DCMI Namespace Policy
The current policy is:
A draft revision,
will be discussed in Madrid in the DCMI Architecture
Working Group. Both versions of this important document
have been included in this packet.
3 Other relevant documents
3.1 DCMI Policy on Naming Terms
3.2 Procedure for Approval of DCMI Metadata Terms and Recommendations
3.3 DCMI Abstract Model (DCMI Recommendation)
3.4 Guidelines for Assigning Identifiers to Metadata Terms
3.5 XML, RDF, and DCAPs
3.6 Element Refinement in Dublin Core Metadata (draft DCMI Recommended Resource)