Agenda - Usage Board telecon
              2006-06-30 Fri 1300 UTC (1500 Berlin, 0600 Seattle, 2200 Tokyo)

              See dialing instructions below
              For IRC, type "/join #UB" on the chat line at:
              -- irc://irc.ukoln.ac.uk/ or
              -- http://dev.ukoln.ac.uk/irc

Participants: Tom, Akira, Joe, Andrew, Diane, Stuart
Regrets: Andy

----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Next face-to-face meeting, Colima, Mexico

   2006-09-30 Sat 0900-1800
   2006-10-01 Sun 0900-1700

   -- Plan to arrive the evening before?  Hotel preferences?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Proposed telecons for August-September

   Aug 04 Fri 1300 UTC (1500 Berlin, 0600 Seattle, 2200 Tokyo)
   Aug 18 Fri 1300 UTC (1500 Berlin, 0600 Seattle, 2200 Tokyo)
   Sep 01 Fri 1300 UTC (1500 Berlin, 0600 Seattle, 2200 Tokyo)
   Sep 15 Fri 1300 UTC (1500 Berlin, 0600 Seattle, 2200 Tokyo)
   Sep 22 Fri 1300 UTC (1500 Berlin, 0600 Seattle, 2200 Tokyo)

   -- Is the Friday slot good?
   -- Who cannot attend on which dates?
   -- Note: scheduled DCMI Web builds on Aug 07, Aug 28, Sep 25

----------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Seattle meeting notes

   The raw meeting notes are at:
   http://dublincore.org/usage/minutes/2006-04-30.ub-raw-meeting-notes.doc

   My final edited version will be posted at:
   http://dublincore.org/usage/minutes/.html/2006-04-30.meeting-notes-final.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Finalizing the DCMI Type Vocabulary changes

   The actions from Seattle were:

   ACTION 2006-04-30 (Tom and Stuart) Create an announcement text for DC
          General and website [news] -- due 19 June
   ACTION 2006-04-30 (Tom and Stuart) create a decision text and numbered
          decision -- due 19 June
   ACTION 2006-04-30 (Tom and Stuart) Finalize the above on the list
   ACTION 2006-04-30 (Tom) Submit approved revisions to Directorate for
          approval; after approval, rebuild and install Type
          Vocabulary documentation
   
   On 2006-06-18, I posted a draft Decision text [1].  However, on closer
   reading of the raw meeting notes [2], it would appear I transcribed the 
   wrong wordings on four points:

    DATASET - comment
        NOT:      A dataset is intended to be useful.
        RATHER:   A dataset may be useful for direct machine processing.

    MOVING IMAGE - definition
        NOT:      A series of visual representation that,
                  when shown in succession, impart an impression of motion.
        RATHER:   A series of visual representations imparting
                  an impression of motion when shown in succession.

    SOUND - definition
        NOT:      Auditory material.
        RATHER:   A resource primarily intended to be heard.

    TEXT - definition
        NOT:      Words for reading.
        RATHER:   A resource consisting primarily of words for reading.

   In the telecon today:
   -- confirm the transcription error (i.e., the decision text [1] will
      need to be revised);
   -- confirm the role of the shepherd (Stuart) and one additional reviewer
      in double-checking the draft decision text [1] against the meeting notes;
   -- confirm timeline for finalization: all UB members sign off on revised
      text by Friday, 11 August for publication and announcement with 25 
      August Web build.

   [1] http://stage.dublincore.org/usageboard/2006/2006-01.dcmitype/dcmitype-decision/
   [2] http://dublincore.org/usage/minutes/2006-04-30.ub-raw-meeting-notes.doc

----------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Finalizing the DCMES editorial changes

   Three texts are needed:

   1) Announcement of public comment (two paragraphs) (Tom - for 
      start of public comment on August 25)

   2) Public comment text: Proposed Changes to Terms in the
      DCMES namespace - a more advanced draft of [1] based on
      changes agreed at the Seattle meeting [2]

   3) A Usage Board Decision text (Tom, to be prepared after
      the public comment period and approved by the UB in Colima)

   [1] http://stage.dublincore.org/usageboard/2006/2006-01.definitions/term-changes/
   [2] http://dublincore.org/usage/minutes/.html/2006-04-30.meeting-notes-final.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Colima Review of Collection Description Application Profile

   Pete has indicated that the "Dublin Core Collection
   Description Application Profile" (DCCDAP) [1] can be made
   ready for review at the Colima Usage Board meeting.

   I believe we are in principle ready to review the profile
   from the standpoint of formal conformance with the
   Abstract Model and propose that we do this in Colima.

   In its current form, however, the DCCDAP draft identifiers
   a number of properties and classes with "placeholder" URIs
   (see Appendix C below).  The question of whether these
   terms could or should be declared in DCMI namespaces is
   one that the Directorate is currently investigating.

   Could the UB assign a status of "conforming" [2] to a
   profile with placeholder URIs?  I think not.  However,
   we do urgently need to move forward on this issue, so I
   suggest we plan to issue a review in the form of written
   comments and evaluation (short of formally issuing the
   status of "conforming") .

   As of August 2005 [3], the plan was that UB members would
   read and digest the profile ahead of time and prepare small 
   position papers:
       o Overall shepherd                               Andrew
       o Evaluate terms against Abstract Model    Andrew, Andy
       o Check comments                                  Akira
       o Check documentation                               Tom
       o Check community buy-in                         Andrew
       o Check functional requirements                     Tom

   Should we pick up this plan again and take it from there?

   Part of even such a "short-of-formal" conformance review
   should be evaluation of documentation provided.  Pete has
   pointed out that our more DCMI Usage Board Process [4] no
   longer has the sections on minimal documentation needed for
   "new" terms that were part of the old Process document [5].
   See Appendixes A and B below.  Pete proposes a proposal
   for the term "PropertyitemFormat" as a model for such
   documentation [6].

   Unlike the review of a term proposal, the review of an
   application profile does not currently require a public
   comment period.  However, if we are to share review
   duties among members of the Usage Board, we would need to
   schedule enough time to allow this work to be done and the
   results disseminated and gathered into the meeting packet.
   This suggests a timetable of:

        2006-08-24 Thu  DCCDAP submitted for review
        2006-09-14 Thu  UB members complete partial reviews
        2006-09-30 Sat  UB meeting in Colima

   [1] http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/collection-application-profile/2006-02-24/
   [2] http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/process/#conforming
   [3] http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2005/09/madrid/profile-collection/
   [4] http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/2006/02/13/process/
   [5] http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/2003/02/07/process/
   [6] http://dublincore.org/collectionwiki/PropertyitemFormat

----------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Replicating DCMES in the DCTERMS Namespace  - and -
   Assigning Domains and Ranges to DCMI properties

   In Seattle, the Usage Board supported the idea that DCMI
   replicate the 15 DCMES elements in the DCTERMS namespace
   and suggested that DCMI not rush this decision -- rather,
   it was recommended that the Directorate consider the
   timeline, priorities, how to do an impact analysis, and
   resource requirements.

   In Seattle, the UB also agreed to progress the assignment
   of domains and ranges to DCMI terms [1], starting with
   approval of the class semantics (buy-in, public comment, F2F
   UB meeting, community consensus) and approval of the use of
   these classes as domains and ranges for DCMI terms (buy-in,
   public comment, F2F UB meeting, community consensus).

   Since then, I have discussed this with Mikael, who sees the 
   following dependencies between the UB effort and the DCAM
   effort:
   
       1. DCAM updates (clarification of Value Type, VES, SES, introduce
          notions of domains and ranges)
       2. DC-TEXT, DC-XML and DC-RDF updated to reflect the above
       3. Copy contents of "1.1" namespace to "terms" namespace
       4. Introduce domains and ranges into "terms" namespace
        - Define semantics
        - Check if we want to reuse W3C classes
        - Declare classes
        - Apply to "terms" properties
       5. Clarify whether encoding schemes are VESs or SESs
       6. Approve DC-TEXT, DC-XML and DC-RDF as DCMI Recommendations

   Mikael has in the meantime kicked off discussion of a 
   proposal on dc-architecture [2].
   
   [1] http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/DCPropertyDomainsRanges
   [2] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0606&L=dc-architecture&P=5526

----------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Back burner

   Proposed changes to terms in the /TERMS/ namespace are
   documented at [1] and were discussed in Seattle [2].
   We should make progress on this if possible, but with less
   urgency than the above.

   [1] http://dublincore.org/usageboardwiki/TermChanges
   [2] http://dublincore.org/usage/minutes/.html/2006-04-30.meeting-notes-final.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dialing instructions
    1) Dial: local country number (http://www.sprintbiz.com/intlaudio)
       -- Germany  0800-181-2311
       -- UK       0800-032-0634
       -- Japan    00531-13-0842 "KDD Only"
       -- US       888-448-7101
       -- US       888-448-7101
    2) Outside the US, you hear: "Welcome... Please enter your 10-digit..."
       Type: 888-448-7101#
    3) You hear: "Please enter..."
       Type:     764-6081#
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IRC: Note that port 6667 needs to be open between your client and
     the server.  Your firewall may need to be opened slightly and/or
     port-blocking settings in your virus/security tool may need to be
     changed.  You can always re-set your nickname with "/nick YourName".




----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
         <http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/profile-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
         <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/twiki/bin/view/Metadata/TermDecisionTree>;.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix C: Namespaces and terms needed for DCCDAP

-- General description terms (non-collection-specific)
   http://example.org/gen/terms#  
   http://example.org/gen/terms#RKMS-ISO8601
   http://example.org/gen/terms#isLocatedAt
   http://example.org/gen/terms#isAccessedVia
   http://example.org/gen/terms#contentsDateRange [*]
   http://example.org/gen/terms#itemFormat [*]
   -- See http://dublincore.org/collectionwiki/PropertyitemFormat
   -- See http://dublincore.org/collectionwiki/DCCDAPitemFormat

   [*] Still under discussion.

-- Collection-specific properties
   http://example.org/cld/terms#  
   http://example.org/cld/terms#CLDType
   http://example.org/cld/terms#DCCDAccrualMethod
   -- See http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/collection-DCCDAccrualMethod/
   http://example.org/cld/terms#DCCDAccrualPeriodicity
   -- http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/collection-DCCDAccrualPeriodicity/
   http://example.org/cld/terms#DCCDAccrualPolicy
   -- See http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/collection-DCCDAccrualPolicy/
   http://example.org/cld/terms#dateContentsCreated
   http://example.org/cld/terms#collectionDescription
   http://example.org/cld/terms#associatedCollection

-- Collection type vocabulary terms
   http://example.org/cld/type#   
   -- See http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/collection-type/ (latest version 2005-03-19)
   http://example.org/cld/type#Catalogue
   http://example.org/cld/type#HierarchicFindingAid
   http://example.org/cld/type#Index
   http://example.org/cld/type#CollectionCollection
   http://example.org/cld/type#CollectionDataset
   http://example.org/cld/type#CollectionEvent
   http://example.org/cld/type#CollectionImage
   http://example.org/cld/type#CollectionMovingImage
   http://example.org/cld/type#CollectionStillImage
   http://example.org/cld/type#CollectionInteractiveResource
   http://example.org/cld/type#CollectionPhysicalObject
   http://example.org/cld/type#CollectionService
   http://example.org/cld/type#CollectionSoftware
   http://example.org/cld/type#CollectionSound
   http://example.org/cld/type#CollectionText


-- 
Dr. Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Director, Specifications and Documentation
Dublin Core Metadata Initiative