innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices

Title: Review of Collection Description Application Profile
Identifier: http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/09/manzanillo/profile-cdap/.index.html
Created: 2006-09-03

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note - links to current documents about Application Profiles at:
-- http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/profile-review/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Required reading for UB members:

   -- Draft Usage Board review
      -- Summary of the assessments
         http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/09/manzanillo/profile-cdap/CDAP_review.pdf
      -- Joe's comments
         http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/09/manzanillo/profile-cdap/WP3_AP_Documentation_1.pdf
      -- Diane's comments
         http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/09/manzanillo/profile-cdap/WP5_AP_Terms.pdf

   -- Documentation submitted by Collection Description WG:
      -- Full CDAP profile
         http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/collection-application-profile/2006-08-24/
      -- Summary CDAP profile
         http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/collection-ap-summary/2006-08-24/
      -- Dublin Core Collection Description Terms
         http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/collection-terms/2006-08-24/
      -- Dublin Core Collection Description Type (CDType) Vocabulary 
         http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/colldesc-type/2006-08-24/
      -- Collection Description Frequency [a vocabulary encoding scheme]
         http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/frequency/2006-08-24/
      -- Collection Description Accrual Method [a vocabulary encoding scheme]
         http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/accrual-method/2006-08-24/
      -- Collection Description Accrual Policy [a vocabulary encoding scheme]
         http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/accrual-policy/2006-08-24/

   -- A reminder on process
      -- http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/09/manzanillo/profile-cdap/2006-02-13.process.txt

----------------------------------------------------------------------
2006-08-29 - Pete - Review version of DC CD AP (2006-08-24) available
           - http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0608&L=dc-collections&P=3773
           - The following should all be accessible from
             http://dublincore.org (and linked to from the Collection 
             Description WG home page).

-- Full DCAP:
   http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/collection-application-profile/2006-08-24/
-- Summary version:
   http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/collection-ap-summary/2006-08-24/

    The latter is intended to be a very condensed view
    of the former -- to enable people to see "at a glance"
    what terms are used in the DC CD AP (which I think is quite
    difficult to get from the full doc in its current format)
    - and/or to act as a sort of "rich table of contents" for
    the former, but it is not intended to be stand-alone. I
    deliberately stripped out some of the information that was
    previously in the summary to avoid duplication/redundancy.

    The main change in this version is to separate out a list
    of properties used to describe a Collection that is also a
    Collection-Description, as discussed recently.
    
    I also went through the comments and tried to make sure the
    text was compatible with the terminology of the DCMI Abstract
    Model and that phrasing was more or less consistent throughout
    the document.
    
    To minimise redundancy, I moved most of the introductory
    material out of the summary document and expanded the
    introduction in the main DCAP document. That really means
    that the summary document is pretty much a "ready reference"
    tool only, and readers coming to the DC CD AP really need to
    look at the full document to understand it.
    
    (I'm afraid I had no inspiration in coming up with a good
    alternative label for "Usage in this DCAP" so I've stuck with
    the current form.)
    
    I've also created a separate document describing the
    "Collection Description Terms", i.e. the new properties,
    vocabulary encoding schemes and syntax encoding schemes coined
    for use in the DC CD AP:

-- Dublin Core Collection Description Terms
   http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/collection-terms/2006-08-24/

       The Collection Description Type Vocabulary has been updated,
       to correct errors and to separate the descriptive text out
       into a one-line "Definition" and a more discursive "Comment".

-- Dublin Core Collection Description Type (CDType) Vocabulary 
   http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/colldesc-type/2006-08-24/

There are full descriptions of the sets of terms in three
vocabulary encoding schemes:

-- Collection Description Frequency [a vocabulary encoding scheme]
   http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/frequency/2006-08-24/

-- Collection Description Accrual Method [a vocabulary encoding scheme]
   http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/accrual-method/2006-08-24/

-- Collection Description Accrual Policy [a vocabulary encoding scheme]
   http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/accrual-policy/2006-08-24/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Domains and ranges - 2006-08-29 Pete clarification

Also the Usage Board is discussing the issue of domains and
ranges for DCMI properties, so I held back from coining any new
classes where it seems likely that the UB will define suitable
classes in the near future (e.g. date/date-range etc). So,
the CLD terms properties do have implicit ranges, even though
they aren't explicitly described at the moment. Essentially,
the content of the RDF representations should for the moment
be treated as something of an indication of intent, rather
than the finished article.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Errata - 2006-08-29

Accrual Method [encoding scheme] documentation says that it replaces

    http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/collection-DCCDAccrualPolicy/2004-08-18/

    when it should refer to

    http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/collection-DCCDAccrualMethod/2004-07-30/

Accrual Method [encoding scheme] documentation says:

    > The Collection Description Accrual Method Vocabulary provides a set of
    > terms that can be used as values of the dcterms:accrualPolicy property

    when it should say

    > The Collection Description Accrual Method Vocabulary provides a set of
    > terms that can be used as values of the dcterms:accrualMethod property

Collection Description Accrual Policy [encoding scheme] says that it replaces

    http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/collection-DCCDAccrualPolicy/2004-08-18/

    when it should refer to

    http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/collection-DCCDAccrualPolicy/2004-07-30/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific assignments

-- WP1 General (Stuart)
   -- "Does the AP meet the community's needs?"

-- WP2 Functional requirements and Data model (Andy)
   -- Are the functional requirements for the AP stated,
      and does the AP conform to the stated functional requirements?
   -- Does the AP data model make sense?
   -- Corollary question: Does an AP need its own data model?

-- WP3 AP Documentation 1 (Joe)
   -- Are the purpose and scope of the AP clearly stated?
   -- Is the introductory material complete and adequate?
   -- Are the terms well described - what descriptive elements are present?

-- WP4 AP Documentation 2 (Akira)
   -- How sensible are the labels for the descriptive elements?
   -- Are the obligations consistent across the properties?
   -- Do the recommended encoding schemes exist?

-- WP5 AP Terms (Diane, Andrew)
   -- Use the term decision tree,
      http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/TermDecisionTree:
      -- Check that each term conforms to the Abstract Model
      -- Are any AP-specific encoding schemes appropriate? 
      -- Are the terms in the encoding scheme defined adequately, 
         are the terms sensible, do they conform?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete on the RDF representations - 2006-08-29

-- http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/collection-terms/2006-08-24/cldterms.rdf
-- http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/colldesc-type/2006-08-24/cdtype.rdf
-- http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/frequency/2006-08-24/freq.rdf
-- http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/accrual-method/2006-08-24/accmeth.rdf
-- http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/accrual-policy/2006-08-24/accpol.rdf

The RDF data should essentially be an alternative
representation of what is in the HTML docs i.e. the only
question marks are to do with that representation (e.g. the
relationship etween a value in a VES and the VES, if we change
the DCAM so that it is not is-instance-of (rdf:type))

I put up RDF/XML representations of the "collection description
terms", the type vocabulary, and these three vocabularies,
and the PURLs for the terms should de-reference to those
RDF/XML docs (i.e. in the same way DCMI serves one doc per
"namespace"). But some of that data is incomplete/tentative,
pending some decisions about the DCAM and/or property
ranges/domains, so at the moment it's probably best to treat
the RDF/XML stuff more or less as a "placeholder".

All the term URIs (I hope) de-reference to something useful --
at the moment that's an RDF/XML document, but in the future
we might set things up so that agents can get alternative
representations (e.g. HTML for a browser displaying stuff to
a human reader, RDF/XML for an app that wants to get the data
about the relationships between terms in a form it can act on).

Note that the current RDF representations listed above
are tentative/incomplete, pending discussions in the DC
Architecture WG about changes to the DCMI Abstract Model, which
would have an impact on how e.g. we describe the relationship
between a vocabulary encoding scheme and a member term/value
within that vocabulary encoding scheme.