DCMI Usage Board telecon - Wednesday, 16 June 2010 - report
Agenda: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1006&L=DC-USAGE&P=50
Attended: Tom, Julie, Stefanie, Akira, Pete.
1. Errata and other changes to DCMI Metadata Terms (Akira)
ACTION 2009-10-16: Pete to look at XSLT for dcmi-terms page index
to determine whether "ready reference" links to terms of the DCMI
Type Vocabulary and terms related to the DCMI Abstract Model might
be added.
-- larger issue is whether DCMI Metadata Terms should be published
using RDFa -- e.g., see
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1005&L=DC-ARCHITECTURE&P=4348
-- continues 2010-06-16
ACTION 2009-10-16: Tom to correct RDF schemas of DCMI Metadata Terms
to use blank node with publisher.
-- dropped - substituted by following:
ACTION 2010-06-16: Tom to use URI identifying DCMI as publisher in RDF
schemas of DCMI Metadata Terms.
ACTION 2010-06-16: Tom to take into account point made by Pete [1]
and a programmer for Drupal:
I am refactoring a vocabulary importer for Drupal. In the new version,
I am including language handling for labels and comments.
This language handling is working fine for most of DC Terms, but I
noticed one small omission that I wanted to pass along-the rdfs:comment
about the vocabulary itself does not have a language attribute even
though the title does have a language attribute. It is the only
rdfs:comment in the document that does not have a language attribute.
[1] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1005&L=DC-USAGE&P=49
2. Asserting the equivalence of dcterms:creator and foaf:maker (Tom and Pete)
ACTION 2009-10-16 Pete and Tom: Pete will investigate OWL
further to see whether it is possible to do this using OWL;
Pete and Tom will work up a post to email to the DC
Architecture and the Semantic Web community with cross
postings pointing to the DC Architecture list email.
-- done 2010-06-16
RESOLVED (to add to Decision document):
RESOLVED: That in agreement with the maintainers of the
FOAF vocabulary, which have added to FOAF the assertion
foaf:maker owl:equivalentProperty dcterms:creator
DCMI will assert:
dcterms:creator owl:equivalentProperty foaf:maker
ACTION 2010-06-16: Pete to check whether FOAF equivalent property
assertion requires extra bit in XSLT.
3. Request for new term
-- David Bromage pointed out that RFC 5646 has obsoleted RFC 4646
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1006&L=DC-GENERAL&P=52
RESOLVED: That DCMI coin the URI
http://purl.org/dc/terms/RFC5646
following the precedents of
http://purl.org/dc/terms/RFC1766
http://purl.org/dc/terms/RFC3066
http://purl.org/dc/terms/RFC4646.
4. Corrections to "DCAP Guidelines"
ACTION 2009-10-16: Tom to make correction in DCAP guidelines
regarding ISO639-2 as proposed in consultation with co-author
Karen Coyle.
-- continues 2010-06-16
ACTION 2009-10-16: Tom to add resource class constraint to
DCAP guidelines as proposed in consultation with co-author
Karen Coyle.
-- continues 2010-06-16
5. User guidance
-- DCMI Glossary Task Group (Tom)
-- DCMI User Guide (Stefanie with Tom)
http://dublincore.org/usageboardwiki/UsingDublinCore
http://dublincore.org/usageboardwiki/UsingDublinCore_2fChapterOne
http://dublincore.org/usageboardwiki/UsingDublinCore_2fChapterTwo
http://dublincore.org/usageboardwiki/UsingDublinCore_2fChapterThree
ACTION 2009-10-16: Stephanie to write an Introduction for new
Guidelines, using Diane's contents list as the basis.
-- done 2010-06-16
ACTION 2009-10-16: Stephanie to find examples for the
interesting (i.e. difficult) properties to clearly show their
use.
-- continues 2010-06-16
-- FAQ (Tom)
ACTION 2009-10-16: Tom and Pete to capture essence of the issues regarding
dcterms:identifier as a literal value in a short paragraph to take to DC
Architecture.
-- continues 2010-06-16
ACTION 2009-10-16: Pete and Tom to write up two approaches ("legacy"
and "modern") to the notion of the "Simple Dublin Core".
-- continues 2010-06-16
6. Future of the Usage Board
-- Discussed the following:
What is the proper role (or mix of roles) for the Usage Board?
-- Application profile review.
-- Review of user guidance material (such as FAQ, Glossary, User Guide)
-- DCMI Metadata Terms maintenance.
What is the optimal size and skill mix of the Usage Board?
Should it be one group or two?
-- General consensus on call:
These are indeed the three areas (profile review, user guidance, terms maintenance).
Profile review should be "put on hold" - not removed definitively from the table.
Profile review takes alot of energy.
The Usage Board does not have the (human) resources to do this.
The results are open to misinterpretation (i.e., more than "well-formedness",
as "endorsement" of the profile as recommended for being fit to purpose).
The current process stands at the end of the profile development process.
Rather, people need support while developing.
Opening up membership (i.e., a bigger group) could make things easier as long
as there is commonality of purpose and a shared conceptualization.
-- Other observations:
Terms side - must be clear about criteria. Coin a DCMI status vocabulary?
Unclear where to draw the line.
When designing metadata, people do not think about use cases and requirements.
If they do not, we have no basis for comparing functional requirements.
In future, may need more focus on communities and usefulness.
-- Tom and Pete on next steps in Architecture:
Goal: to draft position paper on "DCAM: past, present, future" before DC-2010.
Two purposes:
-- Reflecting on history (to communicate how DCAM fit into trends) and
discussing how it can develop in future.
-- To provide the basis for a workplan, pictured as a minor revision of DCAM
bringing it more up-to-date for the Linked Data world.
Provide a context for explanation and development in the future.
6. Next steps
-- DC-2010 in Pittsburgh
Will join forces with the Glossary Task Group in a session in Pittsburgh.