DCMI Usage Board teleconference - Tuesday, September 28, 2010
http://dublincore.org/usage/minutes/2010/2010-09-28.dcub-telecon-report.html

Attended: Tom, Stefanie, Akira, Pete
Regrets: Julie, Joe

1. Future of the Usage Board

   Position to be presented to the Oversight Committee in Pittsburgh on
   19 October.

   https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=DC-USAGE-BC;c6aee0c0.1009

   Broad agreement on concept for "two usage boards".

   Noted that there are areas of overlap
   between a guidance-oriented Usage Board and a
   vocabulary-management-oriented Usage Board, specifically
   regarding the form of publishing DCMI Metadata Terms (a
   guidance document, especially if exampoles are linked)
   and in the review of usage examples for specific properties.

   Broad agreement that the two Usage Boards correspond to
   two distinct profiles of members, though membership in
   the two groups could overlap.

   Tom clarified that Application Profile review would be
   out of scope, and that bringing it back into scope would
   require a proposal with review criteria -- not likely in
   the short term.

   Discussion whether a Guidance-oriented Usage Board
   would wait for materials to be presented, then review,
   or proactively identify gaps and seek ways of filling
   those gaps.  Such a group might be called a Guidance
   Editorial Board.

   Regarding the name of the vocabulary management board --
   it is like going back to the roots of the "Usage Board", so
   it would seem odd to use that name for the guidance group.

   Two possibilities:

   -- Keep "the Usage Board" as an overarching committee
      with two task groups -- Guidance Editorial Usage Board
      and Vocabulary Management Usage Board.

   -- Have two separate groups: Guidance Editorial Board and 
      Usage Board, the latter limited in scope to vocabulary 
      management.

   In the former case (one Usage Board with two Task Groups),
   the issue of voting would need to be spelled out.
   Also whether the group would try to meet as a whole or
   only separately.


2. Revision of DCMI Metadata Terms for publication on 11 October

   The revised documents and Web pages will be:

       http://dublincore.org/usage/decisions/2010/dcterms-changes/
       http://dublincore.org/documents/2010/10/11/dces/
       http://dublincore.org/documents/2010/10/11/dcmi-terms/
       http://dublincore.org/documents/2010/10/11/dcmi-type-vocabulary/
       http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/
       http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/       
       http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-type-vocabulary/
       http://dublincore.org/usage/terms/history/2010/10/11/
       http://dublincore.org/2010/10/11/dcam.rdf
       http://dublincore.org/2010/10/11/dcelements.rdf
       http://dublincore.org/2010/10/11/dcterms.rdf
       http://dublincore.org/2010/10/11/dctype.rdf
       http://dublincore.org/schemas/rdfs/
       http://dublincore.org/usage/xml/
       http://dublincore.org/usage/minutes/
       http://dublincore.org/usage/decisions/

   The Usage Board approved changes as reflected in the
   documents staged and described in the decision document
   [1] and in the telecon agenda [2].

   Discussion of the name of the schema for the /terms/
   namespace considered several options, including simply
   "DC Terms".  In the end, participants agreed on:

        DCMI Metadata Terms in the /terms/ Namespace

   [1] http://dublincore.org/usage/decisions/2010/dcterms-changes/
   [2] http://dublincore.org/usage/minutes/2010/2010-09-28.dcub-telecon-agenda.html

-- 
Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>