DCMI Usage Board - Wednesday, 2007-12-12 2100 UTC telecon - agenda

This agenda:  http://dublincore.org/usage/minutes/2007/2007-12-12.dcub-telecon-agenda.html
Meeting log:  http://dublincore.org/usage/minutes/
Jiscmail:     http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/dc-usage.html
Wiki:         http://dublincore.org/usageboardwiki/

Time: 1300 Seattle / 1600 New York / 2100 London (UTC) / 2200 Berlin / 0600 Tokyo+ / 0800 Sydney+
See dialing instructions below.

Note: as decided on 2007-11-23, this may be a longer call
(90") in order to finish Domains and Ranges and start
discussing Profile Review.

Expected: Tom, Diane, Julie, Joe, Pete, Akira, Andrew

======================================================================
TELECONS
-- Previous telecon - 2007-11-23
   http://dublincore.org/usage/minutes/2007/2007-11-23.dcub-telecon-agenda.html
   http://dublincore.org/usage/minutes/2007/2007-11-23.dcub-telecon-report.html

-- Next telecon
   Time-slot alternatives are:
   1. 0600 Seattle / 0900 New York / 1400 London (UTC) / 1500 Berlin / 2300 Tokyo  / 0100 Sydney
   2. 1300 Seattle / 1600 New York / 2100 London (UTC) / 2200 Berlin / 0600 Tokyo+ / 0800 Sydney+

======================================================================
NEXT BUILD - goals for 14 January build:
-- finalize "Revisions to DCMI Metadata Terms" as a UB decision document (see below)
-- finalize "Domains and Ranges" (see below)
-- http://stage.dublincore.org/usage/decisions/#Decision-2008-01

======================================================================
DCTERMS-CHANGES
-- http://stage.dublincore.org/usage/decisions/2008/dcterms-changes/index.shtml
   "Revisions to DCMI Metadata Terms" 
   To be finalized as a Usage Board decision document

ACTION 2007-11-23: Tom to correct wordings for
dcterms:LCSH, dcterms:MESH, dcterms:DDC, dcterms:LCC,
and dcterms:UDC, adding the word "the" as in:
    specified by the Library of Congress Subject Headings
    specified by the Medical Subject Headings
    specified by the Dewey Decimal Classification
    specified by the Library of Congress Classification
    specified by the Universal Decimal Classification
-- DONE - both in source data and in decision documents

ACTION 2007-11-23: Julie to compare the diff of changes between
the July version and December draft of "Revisions to DCMI Metadata
Terms", as posted to to DC-USAGE [1], with the draft meeting notes [2].
[1] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0711&L=dc-usage&P=2660
[2] http://dublincore.org/usage/minutes/2007/2007-08-26.dcub-meeting-notes.html
-- DONE

ACTION 2007-11-23: Tom to put full names at top of meeting notes.
-- DONE - see [MEETING-NOTES]

ACTION 2007-11-23: Tom to get Akira and Andrew votes for
dcterms:ISO639-3 (UB approval was contingent on approval by at 
least one of them).
-- DONE - also approved by Akira and Andrew

ACTION 2007-11-23: Pete to propose sentence in 
http://stage.dublincore.org/usage/decisions/2008/dcterms-changes/index.shtml
to the effect that DCAM introduces a property ("member of") to express the
relation between a resource and vocabulary of which it is a member.  
-- PENDING - this is being addressed in the section 
   "Member terms of the DCMI Type Vocabulary"

ACTION 2007-08-25: Tom to add a note to the terms changes
document explaining change to the type of the terms in the
Type Vocabulary.
-- PENDING - this is being addressed in the section 
   "Member terms of the DCMI Type Vocabulary"

======================================================================
DOMAINS-RANGES
-- http://stage.dublincore.org/documents/2008/01/14/domain-range/

ACTION 2007-08-16: Tom to edit "Domains and ranges":  in
cases where the domain is not specified add '[unspecified]'.
-- DONE

ACTION 2007-11-23: Tom to clarify with
Makx the status of Domains and Ranges document
(http://stage.dublincore.org/documents/2008/01/14/domain-range/).
Maybe use "Notes for DC in RDF" as model
(http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-rdf-notes/index.shtml).

ACTION 2007-08-26: Pete to propose new definition for 
the proposed class SizeOrDuration.
-- PENDING - see http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0712&L=dc-usage&P=161

ACTION 2007-08-26: Tom to 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 2007-08-26: Tom to 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 2007-08-26: Pete and Mikael to investigate the
usefulness of defining a class of 'non-literal' and assess what
the consequences of this would be for machine processability.
(Usage Board should track issues involved in the notion of
a range of 'non-literal'.)

ACTION 2007-12-04: Pete to update class diagrams in 
http://stage.dublincore.org/documents/2008/01/14/domain-range/.

======================================================================
DCTERMS DOCUMENTATION

ACTION 2007-08-25: Tom to add clarification to Introduction
of http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/ -- for example
rationale for replicating 1.1 terms in the TERMS namespace,
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 2007-08-25: Tom to prepare TERMS document structured
as follows:
    DCTERMS first
    Then 15 1.1 ns -
    VES
    SES
    DCMITYPE
    DCAM

As of 2007-12-06, the working outline is:
    Table of Contents
    Section 1: Introduction and Definitions
    Section 2: Properties in the /terms/ namespace
    Section 3: Properties in the legacy /elements/1.1/ namespace
    Section 4: Vocabulary Encoding Schemes
    Section 5: Syntax Encoding Schemes
    Section 6: Classes
    Section 7: DCMI Type Vocabulary
    Section 8: Terms related to the DCMI Abstract Model

Issue: Will a user find it disorienting not to find "the Dublin
Core" (the 15) at the top?  How can we address this?

ACTION 2007-11-23: Tom to use explanation of "member of" (and
other paragraphs from dcterms-changes) in the introduction
to the DCTERMS document.

======================================================================
PROFILE REVIEW
-- http://stage.dublincore.org/usage/reviews/index.shtml

ACTION 2007-08-25: Tom to add to the criteria in the wiki
http://dublincore.org/usageboardwiki/ProfileReviewCriteriaNew
a section called "Organizational Context": evaluation questions
to be asked about who has stewardship of a proposed AP.

ACTION 2007-11-23: Tom to post pointers to descriptions of
Singapore Framework for use in preparing December 12 discussion
of Profile review.
-- DONE - see following...:

-- Joe revised the Profile Review Criteria [1] for the Singapore 
   meeting in light of the discusson in Barcelona of the Collections
   Profile review [2].  In Singapore, we noted that the criteria would
   need to be revised in light of the Singapore Framework [3].

   [1] http://dublincore.org/usageboardwiki/ProfileReviewCriteriaNew
   [2] http://dublincore.org/usageboardwiki/CollectionsProfileReviewNotes

-- There was an action to revise the Term Decision Tree (which still 
   dates from March 2006) with regard to Vocabulary versus Syntax 
   Encoding Schemes [1].  

       ACTION 2007-03-17: Stuart and Joe revise Term Decision Tree:
       http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/TermDecisionTree.
       (Note: the difference is basically String vs. Thing.)

   If we continue to see the Term Decision Tree as an important
   part of profile evaluation, we should pick this up again.

   [1] http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/TermDecisionTree

-- Stuart and Joe have prepared a one-page explanation differentiating
   VES and SES [1].  From Barcelona:

   Agreed: We need a deeper level of description and
   differentiation between VES and SES, including definitions.
   If you have a something already, how do you tell if it is
   VES or SES.  If an Encoding Scheme tells you what a value
   string it it's a SES.  If Encoding Scheme defines a class
   of values, then it is a VES (e.g., concepts).  For example,
   if you develop a list of educational levels, and if you
   define a list of strings, then you're defining an SES.
   If you define a set of concepts and assign URIs to them (as
   best practice), then you're defining a VES.  Best practice
   in this scenario is to define a set of concepts with URIs
   rather than a set of strings.  Agreed that DC-Education
   is a great test-bed for these concepts.  SES is a datatype
   in RDF.  VES is like conceptScheme in SKOS, only not limited
   to concepts.  For discussion: VES is a set of concepts that,
   once in metadata, allows editors to handle assertion by
   adding things to it.  SES is a set of strings.
   
   [1] http://dublincore.org/usageboardwiki/SESandVES

-- Singapore Framework

   The diagram we used in Singapore is posted at:
   -- http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/SingaporeFramework
      (I plan to turn this diagram into a static Web page on dublincore.org.)

   -- Description Set Profile
      http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/DescriptionSetProfile
    
   -- Eprints, converted into the Wiki format
      http://knowware.nada.kth.se/DCWiki/EprintsApplicationProfile
    
    Guidelines for application profiles, developed by the CEN
    workshop in 2004, which will need to be updated in light of the
    DSP model:
    
    -- Dublin Core Application Profile Guidelines 
       http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/2005/09/03/profile-guidelines/
    
    Process documents
    
    -- Procedure for approval of proposals by DCMI
       http://dublincore.org/documents/approval/ (updated August 2007)
    
    -- DCMI Usage Board Administrative Process
       http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/process/
    
    Other relevant links
    
    -- DCMI Abstract Model
       http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/
    -- Mixing and Matching FAQ ("why can't I just re-use my XML 
       element", Andy, 2005)
       http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/mixing-matching-faq/
    -- DCMI Policy on Naming Terms (uppercase for classes, lowercase
       for properties, etc, Tom and Stu, 2004)
       http://dublincore.org/documents/naming-policy/
    -- XML, RDF, and DCAPs (differences between an XML element and
       an RDF property, Pete, 2005)
       http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/dc-elem-prop/
    -- Element Refinement in Dublin Core Metadata (discussion by Pete 
       of semantic refinement, 2005)
       http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-elem-refine/
    -- Guidelines for Assigning Identifiers to Metadata Terms (Andy
       suggestions re: purl.org, info, xmlns.com, myproject.org, 2004)
       http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/term-identifier-guidelines/
    -- Guidelines for using resource identifiers in Dublin Core metadata
       (a more recent version of the 2004 guidelines?)
       http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/ResourceIdentifierGuidelines
    -- DC-TEXT
       http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/dc-text/
    -- Guidelines for machine-processable representation of Dublin Core 
       Application Profiles (CEN-workshop paper on representing 
       application profiles in RDF, 2004)
       ftp://ftp.cenorm.be/public/ws-mmi-dc/mmidc144.pdf
    -- Legacy (2003) Usage Board definition of "application profile"
       http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/profiles/index.shtml
    

======================================================================
OTHER ISSUES

ACTION 2007-11-23: Joe to own the issue
http://dublincore.org/usageboardwiki/IssuesWithCoverage
for discussion on a future telecon.  (Note: 'spatial' and
'temporal' are "correct" but 'coverage' is too broad --
it allows for topic and this is in conflict with 'subject'
[TK] -- this is an Application Profile issue [TB].)

ACTION 2007-08-26: Tom and Mikael to create a draft "Simple
Dublin Core" AP using the 1.1 namespace and which models
everything as literals. Document the legacy functional
requirements and the organizational context for this AP.

ACTION 2007-08-26: Andrew, Tom, and Dan B, in context of 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.

ACTION 2007-03-17: Joe to draft a document discussing
issues related to principles and purpose of UB decision-making.
(The context was the decision to define ISO639-2 as a set of codes.)
Joe will work with Stuart on this (2007-06-08).

======================================================================
Dialing instructions 
(http://dublincore.org/usageboardwiki/DialingInstructions):
     1) Dial: local country number
        -- UK        0800-032-0634
        -- Germany   0800-181-2311
        -- Australia 1800-006-458
        -- Sweden    020-792-635
        -- Japan     00531-13-0842 "KDD Only"
        -- US        skip this step...
     2) You hear: "Welcome... Please enter your 10-digit..."
        Type: 888-448-7101#
     3) You hear: "Please enter..."
        Type:     764-6081#

     Time-slot alternatives are:
     1. 0600 Seattle / 0900 New York / 1400 London (UTC) / 1500 Berlin / 2300 Tokyo  / 0100 Sydney
     2. 1300 Seattle / 1600 New York / 2100 London (UTC) / 2200 Berlin / 0600 Tokyo+ / 0800 Sydney+