---------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix A: Excerpts from 2006 UB process http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/2006/02/13/process/ 6. Proposals for registration of application profiles 6.1. Application Profiles subject to review. Application profiles emanating from DCMI Strategic Activities may be reviewed by the Usage Board. Metadata implementers (established projects, communities or research groups) may also request review, subject to approval by the UB Chair. /Point to information regarding DCMI Strategic Activities when available./ 6.2. Documentation of Application Profiles. Application profiles must provide, for each term, an identifier of the element set where it is defined, ideally in the form of URIs for individual terms. If the terms in an application profile describe anything other than generic "resources" (the typical domain of Dublin Core), the application profile must make this clear. This is particularly important if an application profile is based on a data model that describes multiple classes of resources, such as agents or collections. It is recommended that application profiles be prepared using the guidelines . 6.4. Contextual information about Application Profiles. The documentation for each Application Profile must provide -- or point to a short text that describes -- the context and purposes in which the application profile is used or is likely to be used; the organizations or individuals involved in its development and a capsule history thereof; and any arrangements, policies, or intentions regarding the future development and maintenance of the application profile. 6.5. Evaluation of terms in Application Profiles. The use of terms related to Dublin Core (such as refinements of Dublin Core elements, or Dublin Core elements that have been constrained for particular contexts) will be evaluated from the standpoint of semantic conformance, grammatical principle (eg, "dumb-down"), clarity, and good practice. /Note: revisit this./ 6.6. Assignment of status "conforming". Application profiles which pass review will be assigned the status of Conforming. The status of Conforming indicates a Usage Board assessment of the application profile as of the date of its submission for review. Changes to already Conforming application profiles require further Usage Board review of the application profile in whole or in part according to the processes and criteria outlined in sections 6.1 through 6.3. 6.7. Publication of Usage Board reviews of Application Profiles. For application profiles that "pass" review, the Usage Board will publish a Review on a Web page for application profiles. Each Review will include, at a minimum: any comments from the Usage Board on the application profile; pointers to locally archived copies of the application profile as originally submitted and (if necessary) as subsequently amended in light of Usage Board comments; a pointer (with appropriate disclaimers) to the "latest version" of an application profile held by its maintainers. 6.8. Persistent identifiers for reviewed Application Profiles. Review represents a form of recognition, and its URL will be persistent for purposes of citation. 7. New terms proposed with an Application Profile 7.1. Evaluation of new terms. New terms appearing in application profile submissions must be evaluated for compliance with the DCMI Abstract Model prior to evaluation of the Application Profile itself. 7.2. Assignment of DCMI term URIs and status. New terms deemed in compliance with the DCMI Abstract Model may be given URIs in DCMI namespaces and assigned a status of Conforming. 7.3. Conformance criteria. Decisions as to whether a proposed term is in compliance with the DCMI Abstract Model will be made using the DCMI-Compliant Term Decision Tree . ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix B: Excerpts from 2003 UB process http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/2006/02/13/process/ 4.2.1. To be supplied by the proposers (see table below): Proposal Requirements Table Name A suggested unique token for use in encodings Label A suggested human-readable label for the proposed term Definition The definition of the term Comment Information concerning the possible application of the proposed term Examples Examples of use of the proposed term, making clear what type of literal values are expected. Type of term Is the proposed term an "element," or an "element refinement" (as defined in http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/principles) [NOTE: Encoding schemes are registered using a separate process] Term qualified If the proposed term is an element refinement, which term does it qualify? Why needed A justification of the need for the proposed term Working Group support Demonstration and documentation that the proposed new term has substantial support of Working Group members. Evidence of such support can include votes held on mailing lists or in face-to-face meetings or positive endorsements from members of the DC-GENERAL mailing list. Proposed status Is the term proposed as Recommended or Conforming? Related DCMI terms A discussion of possible overlap with existing terms Related non-DCMI terms An annotated listing of related terms in non-DCMI metadata vocabularies Impact on applications An annotated listing of existing applications that could be affected by recognition of this term About the proposers A pointer to a description, in standard form (to be specified) of the working group or organization putting forward the proposal: its scope, aims, a brief history, current status, and a pointer to archives.