Singapore Usage Board Meeting Notes, Day 1, 25 August 2007
 

2007-08-25

Present: Joe, Tom, Stuart, Andrew, Akira

Guests: Raju, Pete, Traugott,

Ex officio, Makx

1. Changes to Terms in the DCTERMS Namespace (Diane) [lead by Tom in Diane’s absence]

Errors noticed.

1. Types of Encoding Schemes –

2. Block on third page of the document – formatting screwed up, missing 4646

3. 4646 – datatype vs. VES needs to be resolved

4. in paragraph “New Terms Related to the Abstract Model” - change DCAM “is member of” to a “member of”

5. section 2 – change “free-standing names” to “free-standing labels”

ACTION (TOM): revise the introduction

Going through section 3:

dcterms:creator – APPROVED

dcterms:source – APPROVED

dcterms:coverage – APPROVED

dcterms:language – APPROVED

dcterms:subject – APPROVED [noted, the list of examples is incomplete]

dcterms:title – APPROVED

dcterms:audience – APPROVED

dcterms:alternative – APPROVED

dcterms:tableOfContents – APPROVED

dcterms:abstract – APPROVED

dcterms:dateCreated – APPROVED

dcterms:dateValid – APPROVED

dcterms:dateAvailable – APPROVED

dcterms:dateIssued – APPROVED

dcterms:modified – APPROVED

dcterms:extent – APPROVED

dcterms:medium – APPROVED

dcterms:isVersionOf – APPROVED

dcterms:hasVersion – APPROVED

dcterms:isReplacedBy – APPROVED

dcterms:replaces – APPROVED

dcterms:isRequiredBy – APPROVED

dcterms:requires – APPROVED

dcterms:isPartOf – APPROVED

dcterms:hasPart – APPROVED

dcterms:isReferencedBy – APPROVED

dcterms:references – APROVED

dcterms:isFormatOf – APPROVED

dcterms:hasFormat – APPROVED

dcterms:conformsTo – add the word “described” therefore it should read: “An established resource to which the described resource conforms” APPROVED

dcterms:spatial – APPROVED

dcterms:temporal – APPROVED

dcterms:mediator – APPROVED

dcterms:dateAccepted – APPROVED

dcterms:dateCopyrighted – APPROVED

dcterms:dateSubmitted – APPROVED

dcterms:educationLevel – add ‘described’ and change ‘whom’ to ‘which’ thus, “…for which the described resource is intended” – APPROVED

dcterms:accessRights – APROVED

dcterms:bibliographicCitation – APPROVED

dcterms:license – Tom to explicitly say “New Comment [comment deleted]” – APPROVED

dcterms:rightsHolder – APPROVED

dcterms:provenance – APPROVED

dcterms:instructionalMethod – APPROVED

dcterms:accrualMethod – APPROVED

dcterms:accrualPeriodicity – APPROVED

dcterms:accrualPolicy – APPROVED

RESOLVED: --- in all of the Vocabulary Encoding Schemes change ‘defined’ to ‘specified’

dcterms:LCSH - change dcterms:LCSH to ‘the set of labeled concepts specified by Library Congress Subject Headings’

• APPROVED with change

dcterms:MESH change dcterms:MESH to ‘the set of labeled concepts specified by the Medical Subject Headings’ - APPROVED with the change noted above

dcterms:DDC – ‘the set of conceptual resources specified…’ – APPROVED

dcterms: LCC - ‘the set of conceptual resources specified…’ – APPROVED

dcterms:UDC - ‘the set of conceptual resources specified…’ – APPROVED

dcterms:DCMIType – ‘The set of classes specified by the DCMI Type Vocabulary, used to categorize the nature or genre of the resource.’

dcterms:IMT – ‘the set of media types specified by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority’ - APPROVED

dcterms:ISO639-2 – ‘The three-letter alphabetic codes listed in ISO639-2 for the representation of…..’ APPROVED

dcterms:RFC1766 – APPROVED

dcterms:URI – change ‘defined’ to ‘specified’, write out Internet Engineering Task Force, also: could take clarification somewhere, but should remain consistent between DCMI usage and XML Schema – APPROVED as changed

dcterms:Point – APPROVED

dcterms:ISO3166 – APPROVED

dcterms:Box – APPROVED

dcterms:TGN – APPROVED

dcterms:Period – APPROVED

dcterms:W3CDTF – APPROVED

dcterms:RFC3066 – ‘The set of tags constructed according to RFC 3066 for the identification of languages.’ – APPROVED with changed punctuation

dcterms:NLM – ‘The set of conceptual resources specified by the National Library of Medicine Classification’ – APPROVED

dcterms:RFC4646 - ‘The set of tags constructed according to RFC 4646 for the identification of languages.’ APPROVED with change in punctuation

dcam:memberOf – APROVED

dcterms:VocabularyEncodingScheme – APPROVED

ACTION (TOM): change introduction discussing 4646 to Syntax Encoding Scheme – it currently reads Vocabulary

ACTION (someone?): post a known list of issues to the UB list (1) for subject – if read as inclusive, the list of examples is incomplete, (2) classification codes is misleading because it misses classification captions (use classification expressions instead), (3) ‘spatial’ and ‘temporal’ are “correct” but ‘coverage’ is too broad – it allows for topic and this is in conflict with ‘subject’ [TK] – but this is an Application Profile issue [TB]

DISCUSSION: because of the problem between ‘coverage’ on the one hand and ‘spatial’ and ‘temporal’ on the other. We have two problems:

1. overlap between subject and coverage

2. subproperty relations between spatial/temporal and coverage

we have four courses of action:

1. delete assertion spatial/temporal subproperty of coverage [problem for legacy and namespace policy]

2. change definition of spatial/temporal to fit coverage [problem for namespace policy]

3. do nothing and accept that spatial/temporal are not really subproperties

4. introduce a new coverage or recommend spatial/temporal instead

NOTED: 2004 definition of ‘coverage’ was significantly different from 2007 – and we may have introduced a problem in the change in 2007 i.e., constraining ‘coverage’ by using the word ‘topic’

NOTED: DCMI might want to build an AP that ameliorates the legacy problems of 1.1 and TERMS – ‘coverage’, ‘identifier’, ‘source’, etc. – this needs to be linked to discussion and decision of the AP of Simple DC.

AGREED: ‘spatial’ and ‘temporal’ subproperty assertions are inconsistent with the definition of ‘coverage’

ACTION (TOM): will put the above discussion on telecon agendas

DISCUSSION: two issues were raised [TK]

1. are all vocabularies defining? – many are just lists, labels, or the like, with no formal definitions

2. what is the relationship between concepts and terms in vocabulary control?

AGREED: we can use ‘specified’ instead of ‘defined’

Options for fixing #2 above:

• set of concepts specified by…

• vocabulary specified by…

AGREED: change dcterms:LCSH to the set of labeled concepts specified by Library Congress Subject Headings

[Adjourned for lunch]

Agenda Item #2 – Presentation dcTERMS namespace

Question: How do we want to present DCMES, TERMS, DCAM terms –

#1 – just list these in these sections

1.1

TERMS

VES

SES

DCMITYPE

DCAM

#2 – put TERMS first, to emphasize our preference

put dcterms first

then the 15 1.1 ns -

VES

SES

DCMITYPE

DCAM

AGREED: follow proposal #2 above

ACTION (TOM): add clarification to the introduction – for example rationale for replicating 1.1 terms in the TERMS ns, recommendations on what people should be using by preference, and any other – will circulate to AB for advice on anything else that should be in that introduction

ACTION (TOM): Prepare restructured TERMS document.

Agenda Item #3 – Review of Application Profiles

Usefulness – requirements for the metadata are x,y, or z, and it is documented as such

There are separate steps for deciding which APs to consider

Criteria should be as clear as possible, and if possible, elicit a yes or no answer to the question posed. Verbose explanations belong in a separate document.

Usefulness should only be used in functional requirements relationship to domain model.

ACTION (TOM): add to the wiki a section called “Organizational Context” to ask evaluation questions about who has stewardship of the proposed AP

Singapore Usage Board Meeting Notes, Day 2, 26 August 2007

Present: Diane, Stuart, Tom, Andrew, Akira, Joe

Guests: Pete, Mikael, Fredrik, Raju

Ex officio: Makx

Domains and Ranges
 

ISSUE: Should we adopt 'non-literal resource' as a new range value?

Akira: All values will become 'literals'. A date written in the W3CDTF is a literal but the date itself is *not* a literal. We need more analysis of what ranges are and what values are appropriate.

Often a range value is just a rewording of a property. Pete says not a problem.  Issue is whether the relationship between properties and sub-properties is changed, not how the range restricts values. Choices about property ranges made for APs affects eventual metadata interoperability.

Akira: problem with relationship between ranges and properties. Properties have meanings which are very close to the values of ranges.

NOTE (Tom): 'has domain of rdfs:resource' is an implicit assignment and there is no need to declare it explicitly.

ACTION (Tom): In cases where the domain is not specified add '[unspecified]'.

dcterms:contributor -- APPROVED

dcterms:Agent -- AGREED to change comment to read: "Examples of Agent include person, organization, and software agent." APPROVED
dcterms:AgentClass -- change comment to read: "Examples of Agent Class include groups seen as classes, such as students, women, charities, lecturers." APPROVED.
dcterms:coverage -- APPROVED
dcterms:LocationPeriodOrJurisdiction -- AGREED to change 'period' in definition to 'period of time'. APPROVED.
dcterms:Location -- AGREED to change definition to: "A spatial region or named place." APPROVED
dcterms:PeriodOfTime -- AGREED to change definition to: "An interval of time that is named or is specified by its start and end dates." APPROVED.
dcterms:Jurisdiction -- APPROVED
dcterms:creator -- APPROVED
dcterms:date -- APPROVED. 'Yes': 5; 'No': 1.
dcterms:description -- APPROVED
dcterms:format -- APPROVED
dcterms:MediaTypeOrExtent -- APPROVED
dcterms:MediaType -- APPROVED
dcterms:PhysicalMedium -- AGREED to change comment to: "Examples include paper, canvas, or DVD" and to change definition to: "A physical material or carrier". APPROVED
dcterms:PhysicalResource -- APPROVED
dcterms:FileFormat -- APPROVED
dcterms:DigitalResource -- REMOVE because not used in any Domain or Range assignment. It was only proposed for reasons of symmetry with PhysicalResource.
dcterms:SizeOrDuration -- AGREED The definition is to be redone.

ACTION (Pete): To propose new definition for the proposed class SizeOrDuration.

dcterms:Duration -- REMOVE because not used in any Domain or Range assignment. It may make sesne to create such a subclass of SizeOrDuration at a future date but there may be better ways to subclass SizeOrDuration.
dcterms:Size -- REMOVE because not used in any Domain or Range assignment. It may make sense to create such a subclass of SizeOrDuration at a future date but there may be better ways to subclass SizeOrDuration.
dcterms:identifier -- APPROVED
dcterms:language -- APPROVED
dcterms:LinguisticSystem -- APPROVED
dcterms:publisher -- APPROVED
dcterms:relation -- APPROVED
ISSUE: Whether we leave the range unspecified, or whether we specify a range of 'non-literal'. This would require the definition of a new class of 'non-literal'.

ACTION (Tom): Add a note to the terms documentation for each term that has an approved range of rdfs:resource, except for 'description' and its sub-properties 'abstract' and 'tableOfContents', to the effect that the intention is that these terms are to be used with non-literal values, with a pointer to the AM. The Usage Board is currently investigating a model for expressing this intention formally.

ACTION (Tom): Add a note to the documentation for 'title' saying the intention is that while the Usage Board recognises that title is used in practice primarily with literal values we also recognise that important uses of 'title' with non-literal values and so the Usage Board is investigating the options for expressing this.

ACTION (Pete & Mikael): To investigate the usefulness of defining a class of 'non-literal' and assess what the consequences of this would be for machine processability.

ACTION: To track the issues involved in the notion of a range of 'non-literal'.
dcterms:rights -- APPROVED
dcterms:RightsStatement -- AGREED to change 'Resource' to 'resource' in definition. APPROVED
dcterms:LicenseDocument --  AGREED to change 'Resource' to 'resource' in definition. APPROVED
dcterms:source -- APPROVED
dcterms:subject -- APPROVED
dcterms:title -- NOT APPROVED. Vote -- Yes: 3; No: 1; Abstain: 2. As a consequence the range for 'title' remains unspecified.
NOTE: For "parallel properties", DCMI could provide pointers to a "parallel property" in another namespace from a DCMI vocabulary declaration.
Options:  1. Leave range unspecified
              2. Assign range of 'non-literal'
              3. Assign range of 'literal' [the proposal]
dcterms:type --  APPROVED
NOTE: Need for clarification of relationship between rdf:type and dcterms:type
dcterms:abstract -- APPROVED
dcterms:acessRights -- APPROVED
dcterms:accrualMethod -- APPROVED
dcterms:MethodOfAccrual -- APPROVED
dcterms:accrualPeriodicity -- APPROVED
dcterms:Frequency -- APPROVED
dcterms:accrualPolicy -- APPROVED
dcterms:Policy -- AGREED to change definition to: "A plan or course of action by an authority, intended to influence and determine decisions, actions and other matters." APPROVED
dcterms:alternative -- NOT APPROVED. See note above for dcterms:title
dcterms:audience -- APPROVED
dcterms:available -- APPROVED
dcterms:bibliographicCitation -- APPROVED
dctermsBibliographicResource -- APPROVED
dcterms:conformsTo -- APPROVED
dctrms:Standard -- APPROVED
dcterms:created -- APPROVED
dcterms:dateAccepted -- APPROVED
dcterms:dateCopyrighted -- APPROVED
dcterms:dateSubmitted -- APPROVED
dcterms:educationlevel -- APPROVED
dcterms:extent -- APPROVED
dcterms:hasFormat -- APPROVED
dcterms:hasPart -- APPROVED
dcterms:hasVersion -- APPROVED
dcterms:instructionalMethod -- APPROVED
dcterms:MethodOfInstruction -- APPROVED
dcterms:isFormatOf -- APPROVED
dcterms:isPartOf -- APPROVED
dcterms:isReferencedBy -- APPROVED
dcterms:isReplacedBy -- APPROVED
dcterms:isRequiredBy -- APPROVED
dcterms:issued -- APPROVED
dcterms:isVersionOf -- APPROVED
dcterms:license -- APPROVED
dcterms:mediator -- APPROVED
dcterms:medium -- APPROVED
dcterms:modified -- APPROVED
dcterms:provenance -- APPROVED
dcterms:ProvenanceStatement -- APPROVED
dcterms:references -- APPROVED
dcterms:replaces -- APPROVED
dcterms:requires -- APPROVED
dcterms:rightsHolder -- APPROVED
dcterms:spatial -- APPROVED
dcterms:tableOfContents -- APPROVED
dcterms:temporal -- APPROVED
dcterms:valid -- APPROVED

Agenda Item 8. Application Profile of Simple Dublin Core
Question being addressed is "What do we want to say simple DC is?". This work needs to be based on what functions we are trying to provide for.
1. To provide an AP that tells implementors how to use the traditional '15' in a way that conforms to modern understanding of metadata descriptions based on the DCAM.
2. Scope and purpose based on the mature understanding of the UB, developed over the last 6 years.
To be explicit about a number of things, to comment, to point out flaws and do some house cleaning.
Something that looks very much like the DC15; go into spatial and temporal; provide a pedagological clarification of the 'core'.
The new AP is not intended to solve the general problem of 'resource description', which is best addressed by communities in Application Profiles.
How to deal with source and identifier without going beyond the 15?
NB We are not starting from scratch.
Purpose (MN): to serve as a path for implementors of the simple DC to move towards a more modern implementation of DC metadata terms.
Need to have a relatively conservative interpretation of the OAI-PMH version of DC.
Need for a second profile - but what is its function and scope?
Describe the legacy and the path to the new - in two profiles but presented as one package.
Straightforward to create a AP for traditional 'simple DC'. Then...?
A second AP that provides a modern way of implementing what people think of as 'simple DC' (but called something else).
To reverse engineer traditional use of 'simple' DC.
Reconstruct a new version of what was called 'simple DC' that implements modern understandings and ameliorates existing flaws in the DC15.
APs or description set profiles?

ACTION (Tom & Mikael): Create a draft AP using the 1.1 namespace and which models everything as literals. Document the legacy functional requirements and the organizational context for this AP.

AGREED: Defer, for the time being, work on a second AP until we have a better understanding of the functional requirements, scope and purpose of this second AP.

Agenda Item 4. Agents and FOAF
Does FOAF as a vocab meet the needs of the DCMI community? Does DC have a role to play in providing an institutional context for FOAF.

Dan Brickley proposed using FOAF for Agents Task Group.  Dan did functional requirements of FOAF – on Agent Task Group wiki.

Independent namespace reuse study

Name
Organization
Website
Email

FOAF is a private namespace – so there are issues there

2 issues with using FOAF:
    1. desire to use FOAF in DCAM-based APs like Eprints
    2. FOAF could expire as a reliable namespace

Dan owns the namespace, but is not interested in submitting it to a UB-like process.

Best option would be for the Agents TG/Community to decide and forward an AP to the UB.
MN: need to decouple the FOAF vocab from the AP issue.

ACTION (Andrew, Tom, Dan B): Agents TG to finish the assessment of FOAF against the functional requirements. Include context describing kinds of places where FOAF would be useful and where it wouldn't be useful. Following this assessment, the TG to propose/recommend a course of action to DCMI Directorate.

Agenda Item 5. Changes to term declarations in RDF (Tom)

ACTION (Tom): To add to the terms changes document, the change to the type of the terms in the type vocabulary.

Google Docs -- Web word processing, presentations and spreadsheets. Edit this page (you have permission) Edit this page (if you have permission) | Report spam