Version: Fri Jan 27 16:09:29 WEST 2006
HTML version: http://dublincore.org/usage/minutes/.html/2006-01-26.ub-telecon-report.txt.html
UB log:       http://dublincore.org/usage/minutes/html/index.html

              Usage Board telecon - report
              2006-01-26 Thu 1400 UTC

Present: Tom (chair), Akira, Andrew, Andy, Diane, Stuart
IRC:     http://dublincore.org/usage/minutes/2006-01-26.ub-telecon-irc.log

1. Use of telecons, Subversion project, IRC
   Everyone can access documents at "usageboard"; IRC is working.

2. Revised process document
   http://stage.dublincore.org/usageboard/2006/2006-02.process/2006-01-27.process.shtml

   ACTION: Tom, Stuart, Diane look at sections in italics - discuss on 
   list and clean up well enough to publish on February 13.

3. DCMI Type Vocabulary comment period (Stuart)
   http://stage.dublincore.org/usageboard/2006/2006-01.dcmitype/

   ACTION: Stuart to draft a summary of DC-GENERAL comments
   (see digest linked to usageboard/2006/2006-01.dcmitype),
   circulate to list for discussion, and post sometime after
   Jan 31.

4. DCSV specifications - public comment (Tom, Andy, Andrew)
   http://stage.dublincore.org/usageboard/2006/2006-02.dcsv/

   We need a short explanation (3-4 sentences) for
   -- announcement of comment period
      -- posting to DC-GENERAL
      -- news item (in RSS and DCMI home page)
   -- as part of the specs themselves (at start of document).

   Currently, DCSV specs come up as "recommendations".
   Ideally, we would like to say "This approach has problems.
   But if you want to do it, here is how" -- not exactly
   a recommendation.  We really want to say something like
   "In general, DCMI recommends that implementers use the
   'related description' features of DAM to represent complex
   structures."

   Ideally, then, the DCSV specs would be listed as "rescinded
   recommendations" (a status category which would have to be
   invented, taking time and energy) or "recommended resources"
   (which would mean withdrawing their "recommended" status,
   likewise requiring some sort of additional process).

   The July 2005 specs are posted as "proposed recommendations"
   -- still recommendations but not as prominent -- and the
   2000 specs are still there as "recommendations".  After the
   comment period, the February 2006 "proposed recommendations"
   should be edited to "replace" the 2000 specs, which would
   thereby no longer be listed as "recommendations".  We agree
   this seems like a practical compromise solution.

   It was pointed out that DAM is ambiguous about Structured
   Values and suggested that this ambiguity be removed so that
   DAM and DCSV specs have the same message.  Decided that
   new DCSV specs can come out without revising DAM first;
   the changes on the table do not require us to reword the
   DAM first.  This issue only comes to fore if we want to
   add a sentence pointing people to DAM.

   ACTION: Tom to draft explanation to appear in the
   Introductions of the DCSV syntax spec and (in shorter form)
   in the news items and DC-GENERAL announcements.  Message to say:
   -- we are not "recommending" these
   -- we are just revising language to conform to DAM
   -- no implementations change because of these changes

   ACTION: Andy to ask Mikael to review the DCSV Syntax spec.
   ACTION: Andrew edit the other two.

5. Changes to DCMES property definitions (and dc:date comment) (Tom, Andy)
   http://stage.dublincore.org/usageboard/2006/2006-01.definitions/

   ACTION: Tom make final changes for DCMES property definition

6. Review of application profiles - documentation (Tom)
   -- Guidelines for DCAPs
      http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/profile-guidelines/
   -- Term decision tree
      http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/TermDecisionTree
   -- etc...

   ACTION: Tom to propose draft "suite" for discussion - which
   parts are "appendices", which are stand-alone, etc.

7. Review of application profiles - profiles
   -- Collection Description
      ACTION: Tom to get update from Pete on status

   -- Libraries
   -- Simple Dublin Core

      ACTION: Tom to prepare for discussion at mid-year meeting

8. DC property domains and ranges (and other issues related to RDF Task Force)

9. Issues related to dc:date
   
   If Charles publishes spec independently of DCMI, this may not
   remain a UB issue.

10. Accessibility
    
    ACTION: Tom to discuss possible courses of action with Liddy.

11. DCMI Documentation Roadmap (Tom)
    
    ACTION: Tom to make available for discussion at mid-year meeting

12. Mid-year meeting (Apr 30 - May 1)

    Next meeting location will be identified at the trustees
    call on 2/2, if they can't meet the day before us, we
    will go to Barcelona. If they can meet the day before us
    we will go to Singapore
UB mid-year face-to-face meeting
    Date:    Sunday 2006-04-30 and Monday 2006-05-01
    Venue:   Singapore or Barcelona (will know by 3 February at latest)