innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices

Title: Review of DCMI Application Profiles
Main agenda:
Archived as:
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
     Administrative Process.

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)