Library Application Profile (DC-LAP)
| Title: |
Library Application Profile |
|
Creator:
|
Rebecca Guenther
Senior Networking and Standards Specialist Network Development and MARC Standards Office Library of Congress, USA |
|
Date Issued:
|
2001-08-08
|
|
Identifier:
|
|
|
Replaces:
|
Not applicable
|
|
Is Replaced By:
|
|
|
Latest Version:
|
|
|
Status of Document:
|
This is a DCMI Working Draft.
|
| Description of Document: | This document proposes a possible application profile that clarifies the use of the Dublin Core™ Metadata Element Set in libraries and library-related applications and projects. It was prepared by the DCMI-Libraries Application Profile working group, a subset of the DCMI-Libraries Working Group. |
|
|
|
I. Introduction
The concept of application profiles (see Application profiles: mixing and matching metadata schemas) has emerged within the Dublin Core™ Metadata Initiative as a way to declare which elements from which namespaces are used in a particular application or project. Application profiles are defined as schemas which consist of data elements drawn from one or more namespaces, combined together by implementors, and optimised for a particular local application.
The DCMI-Libraries Working Group has explored various uses of the Dublin Core™ Metadata Element Set in library and related applications and has has envisioned the following possible uses:
- to serve as an interchange format between various systems using different metadata standards/formats
- to use for harvesting metadata from data sources within and outside of the library domain
- to support simple creation of library catalog records for resources within a variety of systems (e.g. using MARC equivalents of Dublin Core™ elements)
- to expose MARC data to other communities (through a conversion to DC)
- to allow for acquiring resource discovery metadata from non-library creators using DC
A library application profile will be a specification that defines the following:
- required elements
- permitted Dublin Core™ elements
- permitted Dublin Core™ qualifiers
- permitted schemes and values (e.g. use of a specific controlled vocabulary or encoding scheme)
- library domain elements (to be registered)
- library domain qualifiers (to be registered)
- additional elements/qualifiers from other application profiles that may be used (e.g. DC-Education: Audience)
- refinement of standard definitions
This document proposes a possible application profile that clarifies the use of the Dublin Core™ Metadata Element Set in libraries and library-related applications and projects. It was prepared by the DCMI-Libraries Application Profile working group, a subset of the DCMI-Libraries Working Group.
2. Namespaces and Format of entries
The DC-Library Application Profile consists of several namespaces:
- Dublin Core™ Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1 [DCMES version 1.1]
- Dublin Core™ Qualifiers [DCMES Qualifiers (2000-07-11)]
- DC-Library Metadata Element Set (DC-LMES)
- DC-Library Metadata Element Set Qualifiers (DC-LMES Qualifiers)
Format of entries:
| Name | The unique token assigned to the qualifier |
| Label | The human-readable label assigned to the qualifier. |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES version 1.1, DCMES Qualifiers (2000-07-11) or DC-Library Metadata Element Set = DC-LMES, DC-Library Metadata Element Set Qualifiers = DC-LMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | DC Element Refinements used in DC-LAP: These qualifiers make the meaning of an element narrower or more specific. A refined element shares the meaning of the unqualified element, but with a more restricted scope. |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | DC-Library refinement, see above; these are domain-specific refinements for DC-Lib. |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | These qualifiers identify schemes that aid in the interpretation of an element value. These schemes include controlled vocabularies and formal notations or parsing rules. A value expressed using an encoding scheme will thus be a token selected from a controlled vocabulary (e.g., a term from a classification system or set of subject headings) or a string formatted in accordance with a formal notation (e.g., "2000-01-01" as the standard expression of a date). If an encoding scheme is not understood by a client or agent, the value may still be useful to a human reader. |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | DC-Library encoding scheme, see above; these are domain-specific encoding schemes for DC-Lib. |
| Form of Obligation | In the DC-Lib data model the obligation can be: mandatory (M), mandatory if applicable (MA), strongly recommended (R) or optional (O). Mandatory "M" ensures that some of the elements are always supported and mandatory if applicable "MA" means that this element must be supported if the information is available. An element with a mandatory "M" obligation must have a value. The strongly recommended and the optional elements should be filled with a value if the information is appropriate to the given resource but if not, they can be left blank. |
| DC Definition | Dublin Core™ definition of metadata field |
| DC Comment | Dublin Core™ comments to this metadata field |
| DC-Lib Definition | DC-Library definition of metadata field |
| DC-Lib Comment | DC-Library comments to this metadata field |
| Best practice | Recommendations of best use of this element for DC-Lib |
| Open questions | Problems, notes, open questions regarding this field |
3. Table of Contents
General notes, open questions regarding all/some elements, ...
- Title
- Contributor (CCP)
- Subject
- Description
- Date
- Type
- Format
- Identifier
- Source
- Language
- Relation
- Coverage
- Rights
- Audience
- Holdings
General notes, open questions regarding all elements:
- Repeatability of each element (should any be non-repeatable?)
- Use of the Language qualifier
- Title and Identifier mandatory, or only one of these elements?
- May all elements be used in an unqualified form (i.e. simple Dublin Core) or is it mandatory for some to be qualified (either encoding scheme or element refinement)?
- Need to specify how to encode citations; Citation WG has not completed its work.
- Possible additional DC-LAP elements: Version (or Edition); Statement of Responsibility?
- Call this DC-LAP (Library Application Profile) or DC-Lib?
4. DC-Library Application Profile
| Name | Title |
| Label | Title |
| Choice of Namespace: | DCMES version 1.1 |
| DC Refinement(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | see below |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | M |
| DC Definition | A name given to the resource. |
| DC Comment | Typically, a title will be a name by which the resource is formally known. |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | Drop initial articles if present (?). (For example, see: Initial Definite and Indefinite Articles) |
| Open questions | Obligation: what if no meaningful title is available?
Either Title or Identifier mandatory? Initial articles; what is best practice? Is there a need to identify a transliteration scheme? |
| Name | Title ¦ alternative |
| Label | Title | Alternative |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers (2000-07-11) |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | O |
| DC Definition | Any form of the title used as a substitute or alternative to the formal title of the resource. |
| DC Comment | This qualifier can include Title abbreviations as well as translations. |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | For titles translated by the metadata creator use the DC-Lib refinement Translated. |
| Best practice | Drop initial articles if present? |
| Open questions | Should titles that are translated and appear on the resource be considered Alternative or Translated titles? |
| Name | Title ¦ translated |
| Label | Title | Translated |
| Choice of Namespace | DC-LMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | O |
| DC Definition | - |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | A translation of the given title supplied by the metadata creator. |
| DC-Lib Comment | A translation of the title appearing on the resource is considered an unqualified title or Title | Alternative. |
| Best practice | Drop initial articles if present? |
| Open questions | Should titles that are translated and appear on the resource be considered Alternative or Translated titles? |
| Name | Title ¦ uniformTitle |
| Label | Title | Uniform Title |
| Choice of Namespace | DC-LMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | R |
| DC Definition | - |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | A title created for the purpose of bringing together all catalogue entries for a work. |
| DC-Lib Comment | Provides identification for a work when various titles have been used for the same work. |
| Best practice | Drop initial articles if present? |
| Open questions | Obligation: recommended or optional? Is this a necessary refinement for DC-Lib? |
Back to TOC
| Name | Creator |
| Label | Creator |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES version 1.1 |
| DC Refinement(s) | |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | |
| Form of Obligation | See below |
| DC Definition | An entity primarily responsible for making the content of the resource. |
| DC Comment | Examples of a Creator include a person, an organisation, or a service. Typically, the name of a Creator should be used to indicate the entity. |
| DC-Lib Definition | |
| DC-Lib Comment | |
| Best practice | Do not use; use Contributor or Contributor.Creator. |
| Open questions | See questions below under Contributor. |
Contributor (Combination of
the original DC elements Creator, Contributor,
Publisher)
| Name | Contributor |
| Label | Contributor |
| Choice of Namespace | ? |
| DC Refinement(s) | |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | |
| Form of Obligation | MA |
| DC Definition | An entity responsible for making contributions to the content of the resource. |
| DC Comment | Examples of a Contributor include a person, an organisation, or a service. Typically, the name of a Contributor should be used to indicate the entity. |
| DC-Lib Definition | Includes DC elements Creator, Contributor and Publisher. (These will each need separate table entries to give Best practice information.) |
| DC-Lib Comment | |
| Best practice | |
| Open questions | DC-Usage is considering CCP qualifiers; how this will
be represented in DC-LAP is subject to change. Could also be defined as Agent, rather than Contributor (i.e., and use Agent instead of Creator/Contributor/Publisher)? Implementors who already work with the original DC elements could map to e.g. Contributor.Creator for DC.Creator (and also true for DC.Publisher to Contributor.Publisher and DC.Contributor to Agent.Contributor); see below under Role. |
| Name | Contributor ¦ role |
| Label | Contributor | Role |
| Choice of Namespace | ? |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | Role (two further subordinate refinements see below). |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | MARC Relator Codes |
| Form of Obligation | MA |
| DC Definition | - |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | Designation of a function that describes the relationship between a Contributor and a resource. |
| DC-Lib Comment | |
| Best practice | |
| Open questions | DC-Usage is considering CCP qualifiers; how this will
be represented in DC-LAP is subject to change. It is
likely that the terms in MARC Relator code list (or some
subset) will be used as element refinements to CCP. Implementors who already work with the original DC elements could map to e.g. Contributor.Creator for DC.Creator. There may be a problem with implementors who use the original elements with a role refinement, e.g. DC.Creator.Illustrator. A possible solution could be to include an additional level (refinement) with the original DC elements (see model 3 by SUB Göttingen). |
| Name | Contributor ¦ type |
| Label | Contributor | Type |
| Choice of Namespace | ? |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | Type |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | D CAT 1 |
| Form of Obligation | R |
| DC Definition | - |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | The category of the Agent (values to include: person, organization, event, object) as in encoding scheme above. |
| DC-Lib Comment | |
| Best practice | |
| Open questions | DC-Usage is considering qualifiers for
Creator/Contributor/Publisher; how this will be
represented in DC-LAP is subject to change. It is suggested that an Agent Type vocabulary be established to indicate the type of Contributor (see also DCAT1 above). We will need guidance on how to represent this (DC-Architecture WG). |
| Name |
Contributor ¦
attributes or Contributor ¦ role | attributes |
| Label | Contributor | Attributes or Contributor | Role |Attributes |
| Choice of Namespace | ? |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | Includes attributes of a Contributor (either used in
combination with Contributor.Role.Type, Contributor.Role
or Contributor.Type). These had previously been referred to as "structured values" of CCP. These "subrefinements" may include examples such as: FamilyName, GivenName, BirthDate, Affiliation, Place/Address, Identifier, etc. with information of obligation, semantic definition, encoding scheme, etc. of each "subrefinement". |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | Encoding schemes need to be defined for the Attributes, e.g. LCNAF, PND, GKD, TGN, URI, etc. (link to a registry where all encoding schemes are defined?). Each encoding scheme would need to be registered separately. Encoding schemes would include authority files and/or systems of cataloging rules. |
| Form of Obligation | ?? depends on each "subrefinement", needs further discussion |
| DC Definition | - |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | |
| DC-Lib Comment | |
| Best practice | |
| Open questions | DC-Usage is considering qualifiers for Creator/Contributor/Publisher; how this will be represented in DC-LAP is subject to change. We will need guidance on how to represent this (DC-Architecture WG). |
Back to TOC
| Name | Publisher |
| Label | Publisher |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES version 1.1 |
| DC Refinement(s) | |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | |
| Form of Obligation | See below |
| DC Definition | An entity responsible for making the resource available. |
| DC Comment | Examples of a Publisher include a person, an organisation, or a service. Typically, the name of a Publisher should be used to indicate the entity. |
| DC-Lib Definition | |
| DC-Lib Comment | |
| Best practice | Do not use; use Contributor or Contributor.Publisher. |
| Open questions | See questions below under Contributor. |
Note:
To be precise, for each refinement and encoding scheme (DC, DC-Lib, etc. defined) an extra definition table sheet would be needed. (For each namespace the respective refinements and the respective encoding schemes are in one table sheet to save space. This will be modified in the future).
| Name | Subject |
| Label | Subject |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES version 1.1 |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | see below |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| Form of Obligation | MA |
| DC Definition | The topic of the content of the resource. |
| DC Comment | Typically, a Subject will be expressed as keywords, key phrases or classification codes that describe a topic of the resource. Recommended best practice is to select a value from a controlled vocabulary or formal classification scheme. |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | |
| Best practice | It is recommended that a controlled vocabulary be used with encoding scheme specified. |
| Open questions | Should this element be mandatory? May Subject element be used in a unqualified form? |
| Name | Subject ¦ DC-Lib refinements |
| Label | ... |
| Choice of Namespace | DC-LMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | Possible refinements: Subject.Keyword,
Subject.Classification Other possible refinements for Type of subject: Subject.Personal; Subject.Organization; Subject.Geographic If Subject.Geographic is used, It is necessary to decide whether we want to put geographical information of the intellectual content of the resource in this field or if we want to use the Coverage element with the refinement Spatial (see also element Coverage.Spatial, DC-Lib comment). Or is there a distinction to be explained? |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| Form of Obligation | R |
| DC Definition | |
| DC Comment | |
| DC-Lib Definition | Indicates the type of subject term (keyword system or classification system) |
| DC-Lib Comment | |
| Best practice | Use a controlled list (controlled vocabulary because of classification system?) and include encoding scheme. |
| Open questions | Do we accept the Subject element with refinement but
without encoding scheme? Which refinements are necessary and useful? |
| Name | Subject ¦ DC encoding scheme(s) |
| Label | ... |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers (2000-07-11) |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | see above |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | LCSH, MeSH, DDC, LCC, UDC |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| Form of Obligation | MA |
| DC Definition | |
| DC Comment | |
| DC-Lib Definition | |
| DC-Lib Comment | |
| Best practice | Use the encoding scheme(s) with a DC-Lib subject refinement. |
| Open questions | Do we want to include an additional qualifier (identifier) to link to a registry where all encoding schemes are defined in a special schema (e.g. based on RSLP schema?). NKOS will probably develop such a schema. |
| Name | Subject ¦ DC-Lib encoding scheme(s) |
| Label | ... |
| Choice of Namespace | DC-LMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | see above |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see above |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | SWD, Rameau, UMLS, CCS, MSC 2000, PACS |
| Form of Obligation | MA |
| DC Definition | |
| DC Comment | |
| DC-Lib Definition | |
| DC-Lib Comment | These include additional encoding schemes to be registered not yet DCMI-approved. |
| Best practice | Use the encoding scheme(s) with a DC-Lib subject refinement. |
| Open questions | It would be possible to register all subject schemes
on the
MARC list of subject and classification
sources. Would this be useful? Do we want to include an additional qualifier (identifier) to link to a registry where all encoding schemes are defined in a special schema (e.g. based on RSLP schema?). NKOS will probably develop such a schema. |
Back to TOC
| Name | Description |
| Label | Description |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES version 1.1 |
| DC Refinement(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | see below |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | |
| Form of Obligation | R |
| DC Definition | An account of the content of the resource. |
| DC Comment | Description may include but is not limited to: an abstract, table of contents, reference to a graphical representation of content or a free-text account of the content. |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | Use text (and not only a URL) to describe the resource. |
| Open questions | URI has not been approved as an encoding scheme; it should be submitted as a general DC encoding scheme (not just for DC-Lib). This will require a separate table. |
| Name | Description | URI |
| Label | Description | URI |
| Choice of Namespace | DC-LMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | see below |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | Description | URI |
| Form of Obligation | R |
| DC Definition | |
| DC Comment | |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | |
| Open questions | URI has not been approved as an encoding scheme; it should be submitted as a general DC encoding scheme (not just for DC-Lib). |
| Name | Description ¦ abstract |
| Label | Description | Abstract |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers (2000-07-11) |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | see below |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | R |
| DC Definition | An account of the content of the resource. |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | Use text (and not only a URL) to describe the resource. |
| Open questions |
| Name | Description | tableOfContents |
| Label | Description ¦ Table Of Contents |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers (2000-07-11) |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | see below |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | R |
| DC Definition | A list of subunits of the content of the resource. |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | Use text (and not only a URL) to describe the resource. |
| Open questions |
| Name | Description ¦ review |
| Label | Description | Review |
| Choice of Namespace | DC-LMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | Review |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | O |
| DC Definition | - |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | An assessment of the quality, depth or appropriateness of the resource. |
| DC-Lib Comment | |
| Best practice | |
| Open questions |
Back to TOC
| Name | Date |
| Label | Date |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES version 1.1 |
| DC Refinement(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | see below |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | MA |
| DC Definition | A date associated with an event in the life cycle of the resource. |
| DC Comment | Typically, date will be associated with the creation or availability of the resource. Recommended best practice for encoding the date value is defined in a profile of ISO 8601 [W3CDTF] and follows the YYYY-MM-DD format. |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | Recommend use of an element refinement for type of Date. |
| Open questions | Do we accept the Date element without refinement
and/or without encoding scheme? How to deal with inadequacies of the possible encoding schemes? There are limitations in conveying: 1) BCE dates; 2) non-Gregorian calendar dates; 3) ambiguity, approximation (e.g., about, near, flourished, assumed); 4) partially known dates (e.g., 19?? ); 5) date is unknown/unavailable; 6) open-ended intervals (e.g., 1999-); 7) complex, multi-instance/period intervals. Are there conventions (e.g. bracket, slash, etc.) or other encoding schemes we want to specify to allow for these limitations? |
| Name | Date ¦ created |
| Label | Date | Created |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers (2000-07-11) |
| DC Refinement(s) | Created |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | see below |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | MA |
| DC Definition | Date of creation of the resource. |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | Use for the creation of the intellectual content. |
| Best practice | |
| Open questions | Do we need the interpretation above under DC-Lib Comment to use this refinement regarding the content and not for the instantiation? |
| Name | Date ¦ valid |
| Label | Date | Valid |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers (2000-07-11) |
| DC Refinement(s) | Valid |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | see below |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | O |
| DC Definition | Date (often a range) of validity of the resource. |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | ? |
| Open questions | Do we need a DC-LAP interpretation about how to use this? |
| Name | Date ¦ available |
| Label | Date | Available |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers (2000-07-11) |
| DC Refinement(s) | Available |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | see below |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | O |
| DC Definition | Date (often a range) that the resource will become or did become available. |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | ? |
| Open questions | Do we need a DC-LAP interpretation about how to use this? |
| Name | Date ¦ issued |
| Label | Date | Issued |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers (2000-07-11) |
| DC Refinement(s) | Issued |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | see below |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | MA |
| DC Definition | Date of formal issurance (e.g. publication) of the resource. |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | Use for the instantiation. |
| Open questions | Need LAP interpretation to use for instantiation? |
| Name | Date ¦ modified |
| Label | Date | Modified |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers (2000-07-11) |
| DC Refinement(s) | Modified |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | see below |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | O |
| DC Definition | Date on which the resource was changed. |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | |
| Open questions | Do we need a DC-LAP interpretation about how to use this? Should obligation be MA or O? |
| Name | Date ¦ copyright |
| Label | Date | Copyright |
| Choice of Namespace | DC-LMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | see above |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | Copyright |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | R ? |
| DC Definition | - |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | Date of copyright statement. |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | Recommend use if: 1) the value is different from Date.Issued or Date.Created, or 2) the copyright date is known but no value is supplied for Date.Issued or Date.Created. |
| Open questions | Obligation? |
| Name | Date ¦ submitted |
| Label | Date | Submitted |
| Choice of Namespace | DC-LMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | see above |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | Submitted |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | O |
| DC Definition | - |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | Date of submission of the resource (e.g. thesis, articles, etc.). |
| DC-Lib Comment | |
| Best practice | Recommended for theses and dissertations. |
| Open questions | SUB Goettingen proposes this element for dissertations and journal articles according to the definition of this element in the German dissonline.de project, see Metadaten im Umfeld von Dissertationen. Do we want to include it in DC-LAP? |
| Name | Date ¦ accepted |
| Label | Date | Accepted. |
| Choice of Namespace | DC-LMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | see above |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | Accepted |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | O |
| DC Definition | - |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | Date of acceptance of the resource (e.g. of thesis by university department/institution, of article by journal, etc.). |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | Recommended for theses or dissertations. |
| Open questions | SUB Goettingen proposes this element for dissertations and journal articles according to the definition of this element in the German dissonline.de project, see Metadaten im Umfeld von Dissertationen. Do we want to include it in the LAP? |
| Name | Date ¦ ISO 8601 |
| Label | ... |
| Choice of Namespace | DC-LMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | ISO 8601 |
| Form of Obligation | MA |
| DC Definition | - |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | Rules for encoding: ISO 8601 has alternatives, with or without the hyphen (i.e. 2001-08-07 or 20010807). DC-LAP recommends use without the hyphen. If use of hyphen is preferred use W3C-DTF as encoding scheme. |
| Open questions | ISO 8601 has not been registered as a DCMI Approved
encoding scheme. Suggest registering as DCMI Approved.
Only W3C-DTF is registered, which refers to ISO
8601. If this becomes DCMI Approved, it would be listed under the DCMI Namespace. |
Back to TOC
| Name | Type |
| Label | Resource Type |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES version 1.1 |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| Form of Obligation | O |
| DC Definition | The nature or genre of the content of the resource. |
| DC Comment | Type includes terms describing general categories, functions, genres, or aggregation levels for content. Recommended best practice is to select a value from a controlled vocabulary (for example, the list of DCMI Types). To describe the physical or digital manifestation of the resource, use the Format element. |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | Use a controlled list and identify the source with encoding scheme. |
| Open questions | Do we accept the Type element in a unqualified form? |
| Name | Type ¦ DCMIType |
| Label | Type | DCMI Type Vocabulary |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers (2000-07-11) |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | DCMIType, see http://dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-type-vocabulary/ |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| Form of Obligation | O |
| DC Definition | A list of types used to categorize the nature or genre of the content of the resource. |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | Recommended that at least one value from DCMI-Type be supplied for a high level category; Type may be repeated for a more specific type from another specified scheme. |
| Open questions | Is DCMI Type Vocabulary useful? |
| Name | Type ¦ DC Lib encoding scheme(s) |
| Label | ... |
| Choice of Namespace | DC-LMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see above |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | Place for abbreviation/acronym of used type list. |
| Form of Obligation | O |
| DC Definition | - |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | Use a controlled list and identify the source with encoding scheme. |
| Open questions | To be precise, for each encoding scheme an extra
definition table sheet would be needed. These will have to be identified and registered.Consider registering those defined in the MARC list of sources |
Back to TOC
| Name | Format ¦ IMT |
| Label | Format | IMT |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers (2000-07-11) |
| DC Refinement(s) | |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | see below |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | IMT |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | R |
| DC Definition | The physical or digital manifestation of the resource. |
| DC Comment | Typically, Format may include the media-type or dimensions of the resource. Format may be used to determine the software, hardware or other equipment needed to display or operate the resource. Examples of dimensions include size and duration. Recommended best practice is to select a value from a controlled vocabulary (for example, the list of Internet Media Types [MIME] defining computer media formats). |
| DC-Lib Definition | |
| DC-Lib Comment | |
| Best practice | Use this element primarily for IMT. |
| Open questions | Do we also need an extra table sheet for the unqualified element (is it allowed without encoding scheme specified)? Suggest not using refinement Medium? |
| Name | Format ¦ extent |
| Label | Format | Extent |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers (2000-07-11) |
| DC Refinement(s) | Extent |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | see below |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | O |
| DC Definition | The size or duration of the resource. |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | ? |
| Open questions | Should we allow this for free text about the extent? Or use Format element only for IMT? |
| Name | Format ¦ Notes |
| Label | ... |
| Choice of Namespace | DC-LMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | see above |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | Notes |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | O |
| DC Definition | - |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | A textual note about the format of the resource. |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | Use for free text. |
| Open questions | Is it necessary to have a format note? |
Back to TOC
| Name | Identifier |
| Label | ... |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES version 1.1 |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | see below |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| Form of Obligation | M |
| DC Definition | An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context. |
| DC Comment | Recommended best practice is to identify the resource by means of a string or number conforming to a formal identification system. Example formal identification systems include the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) (including the Uniform Resource Locator (URL)), the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and the International Standard Book Number (ISBN). |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | Use best practice statement as above. |
| Open questions | Obligation: can it be mandatory? Will there always be
some kind of identifier? Or shall either a Title or
Identifier be mandatory? Should Identifier be allowed without an encoding scheme? |
| Name | Identifier ¦ URI |
| Label | ... |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | URI |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| Form of Obligation | MA |
| DC Definition | |
| DC Comment | |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | Recommended best practice is to identify the resource by means of a string or number conforming to a formal identification system. |
| Open questions |
| Name | Identifier | invalid |
| Label | Identifier | Invalid |
| Choice of Namespace | DC-LMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see above |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| Form of Obligation | O |
| DC Definition | |
| DC Comment | |
| DC-Lib Definition | An identifier that is cancelled, invalid or otherwise incorrect. |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | Recommended best practice is to identify the resource by means of a string or number conforming to a formal identification system. |
| Open questions | Is there a need for this qualifier? |
| Name | Identifier ¦ DC-Lib encoding scheme(s) |
| Label | ... |
| Choice of Namespace | DC-LMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see above |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | SICI, ISBN, ISSN, DOI, (if not included in DC encoding scheme URI) |
| Form of Obligation | MA |
| DC Definition | - |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | SICI: Serial Item and Contribution Identifier; ISBN: International Standard Book Number; ISSN: International Standard Serial Number; DOI: Digital Object Identifier |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | Use the element Identifier on a more abstract level; identifier for local library holdings like call number could be put into the DC-LAP element Holding. |
| Open questions | Additional encoding schemes including those above will need to be registered as DCMI or DC-LAP. Each will require a separate table. |
Back to TOC
| Name | Source |
| Label | ... |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES version 1.1 |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | ? |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | see below |
| DC Definition | A Reference to a resource from which the present resource is derived. |
| DC Comment | The present resource may be derived from the Source resource in whole or in part. Recommended best practice is to reference the resource by means of a string or number conforming to a formal identification system. |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | Do not use this element; use Relation.IsFormatOf or Relation.IsVersionOf. |
| Open questions | Do we want to disallow the use of this element in favor of the relation elements above, or use it only for non-digital originals of digitized objects? |
Back to TOC
| Name | Language ¦ ISO639-2/B |
| Label | Language | ISO 639-2/B |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | ISO 639-2/B |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | MA |
| DC Definition | A language of the intellectual content of the resource. |
| DC Comment | Recommended best practice for the values of the Language element is defined by RFC 1766 which includes a two-letter Language Code (taken from the ISO 639 standard), followed optionally, by a two-letter Country Code (taken from the ISO 3166 standard). For example, en for English, fr for French, or en-uk for English used in the United Kingdom. |
| DC-Lib Definition | Use the bibliographic codes from ISO 639-2. ISO 639-2 in general is a DCMI approved encoding scheme. |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | Use codes rather than text. Mandatory if applicable means if there is any spoken or written text, supply. |
| Open questions | Other more specific DC-Lib instructions? |
| Name | Language ¦ RFC 1766 |
| Label | ... |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | RFC 1766 |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | O |
| DC Definition | A language of the intellectual content of the resource. |
| DC Comment | Recommended best practice for the values of the Language element is defined by RFC 1766 which includes a two-letter Language Code (taken from the ISO 639 standard), followed optionally, by a two-letter Country Code (taken from the ISO 3166 standard). For example, en for English, fr for French, or en-uk for English used in the United Kingdom. |
| DC-Lib Definition | |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | Use of the ISO 639-2/B code is preferred. A mapping between both codes is available at http://lcweb.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/englangn.html. |
| Open questions | Note that RFC 1766 has been replaced by RFC 3066, which allows for a code from ISO 639-2 when there is no corresponding ISO 639-1 code. RFC 3066 is being registered as a DCMI approved scheme. |
| Name | Relation |
| Label | Relation |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES version 1.1 |
| DC Refinement(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | O ? |
| DC Definition | A reference to a related resource. |
| DC Comment | Recommended best practice is to reference the resource by means of a string or number conforming to a formal identification system. |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | If using qualifiers, use the most specific one that is applicable. |
| Best practice | Recommended use with qualifiers in certain
situations: - When documents in hand are parts of "host documents" (e.g. journal, monographic series) and when there is no citation information in DC identifier (if used by Citation WG). - When documents in hand are revisions or reformatted issues of earlier publications and information on these are readily available. |
| Open questions | Do we allow the use of Relation without qualifiers? Is free text allowed? |
| Name | Relation ¦ isVersionOf |
| Label | Relation | Is Version Of. |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | IsVersionOf, further refinements see below |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | R |
| DC Definition | The described resource is a version, edition, or adaptation of the referenced resource. Changes in version implies substantive changes in content rather than differences in format. |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | Do not include qualifier HasVersion, since this implies that it is clear which came first. |
| Best practice | |
| Open questions |
| Name | Relation ¦ isFormatOf |
| Label | Relation | Is Format Of |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | IsFormatOf, further refinements see below and above |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | R |
| DC Definition | The described resource is the same intellectual content of the referenced resource, but presented in another format. |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | Do not include qualifier HasFormat, since this implies that it is clear which came first. |
| Best practice | |
| Open questions |
| Name | Relation ¦ isReplacedBy |
| Label | Relation | Is Replaced By |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | IsReplacedBy, further refinements see below and above |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | R |
| DC Definition | The described resource is supplanted, displaced, or superceded by the referenced resource. |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | |
| DC-Lib Comment | Used for succeeding version. |
| Best practice | |
| Open questions | Would we use this in a broader or narrower sense than DC defined IsReplacedBy? |
| Name | Relation ¦ Replaces |
| Label | ... |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | Replaces, further refinements see below and above |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | R |
| DC Definition | The described resource supplants, displaces, or supersedes the referenced resource. |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | |
| DC-Lib Comment | Used for preceding version. |
| Best practice | |
| Open questions | Would we use this in a broader or narrower sense than DC defined IsReplacedBy? |
| Name | Relation ¦ IsPartOf |
| Label | Relation | Is Part Of |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | IsPartOf |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | R |
| DC Definition | The described resource is a physical or logical part of the referenced resource. |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | Recommended use when documents in hand are parts of "host documents" (e.g. journal, monographic series) and when there is no citation information in DC identifier (if used by Citation WG). |
| Open questions | Any further clarifications needed? |
| Name | Relation ¦ hasPart |
| Label | Relation | Has Part |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | HasPart |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | R |
| DC Definition | The described resource includes the referenced resource either physically or logically. |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | |
| Open questions | Any further clarifications needed? |
| Name | Relation ¦ requires |
| Label | Relation | Requires |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | Requires |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | R |
| DC Definition | The described resource requires the referenced resource to support its function, delivery, or coherence of content. |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | |
| Open questions | Any further clarifications needed? |
| Name | Relation ¦ isReferencedBy |
| Label | Relation | Is Referenced By |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | IsReferencedBy |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | O |
| DC Definition | The described resource is referenced, cited, or otherwise pointed to by the referenced resource. |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | |
| Open questions | Needs further discussion as to how used, and how it relates to Citation work. |
| Name | Relation ¦ References |
| Label | ... |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | References |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | O |
| DC Definition | The described resource references, cites, or otherwise points to the referenced resource. |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | |
| Open questions | Needs further discussion as to how used, and how it relates to Citation work. |
| Name | Relation ¦ URI |
| Label | ... |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | see above |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | URI (and ISBN, ISSN, DOI, etc.; if not included in DC encoding scheme URI, additional table sheets are needed. See also encoding scheme for Identifier). |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | ? |
| DC Definition | A URI uniform resource identifier. |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | |
| Open questions | The same encoding scheme(s) as in Identifier should
be registered. Each will have a separate table. Do we allow also free text instead of using URI? If not, the encoding scheme URI should be placed in each refinement table sheet instead of in a separate table. If yes, we should note in each refinement table sheet that either URI encoding scheme (recommended?) or free text (optional?) could be used. |
Back to TOC
Note:
To be precise, for each encoding scheme (DC, DC-Lib, etc. defined) an extra definition table sheet would be needed also with information about the obligation. (We put all encoding schemes in one table sheet to save space).
| Name | Coverage ¦ Spatial |
| Label | ... |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers and DC-LMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | Spatial (for Temporal see below) |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | DCMI Point (?), ISO 3166, DCMI Box (?), TGN |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | MARC Geographic Area Codes, MARC Country Codes, Coded Cartographic Mathematical Data (??) |
| Form of Obligation | R or MA |
| DC Definition | Spatial characteristics of the intellectual content of the resource. |
| DC Comment | Coverage will typically include spatial location ... Recommended best practice is to select a value from a controlled vocabulary ... |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | We should decide whether we want to put geographical information of the intellectual content of the resource in the subject field (e.g. with a refinement like "geographic") or if we want to use the Coverage element with the refinement Spatial. In the first case we have to define a DC-Lib specific refinement for Subject. |
| Best practice | Use Coverage with qualifier Spatial or Temporal. |
| Open questions | Do we allow the use of Coverage without qualifiers? Is free text allowed? Additional encoding schemes as noted above need to be registered. |
| Name | Coverage ¦ temporal |
| Label | Coverage | Temporal |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | Temporal (for Spatial see above) |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | DCMI Period, W3C-DTF |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | R or MA |
| DC Definition | Temporal characteristics of the intellectual content of the resource. |
| DC Comment | Coverage will typically include temporal period ... Recommended best practice is to select a value from a controlled vocabulary ... |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | ? |
| Open questions |
There is a need to evaluate DCMI Box and DCMI Point as for their usefulness for libraries. How do these relate to recording of cartographic data in MARC field 034? Can textual descriptions of temporal coverage go here? Example is a journal published from 1970 to 1980 with content about a period e.g. in the Middle Ages? Since the DC definition for Coverage.Temporall is "Temporal characteristics of the intellectual content of the resource", the "Middle Ages" should go in this element. Do we need an additional qualifier to provide information about the "years of publication" (e.g. for a journal)? Should this go into date (refinement something like range or duration?)?
|
Back to TOC
| Name | Rights |
| Label | Rights |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES version 1.1 |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | ?? |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | see below |
| Form of Obligation | R if applicable (if there are encumbrances) |
| DC Definition | Information about rights held in and over the resource. |
| DC Comment | Typically, a Rights element will contain a rights management statement for the resource, or reference a service providing such information. Rights information often encompasses Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), Copyright, and various Property Rights. If the Rights element is absent, no assumptions can be made about the status of these and other rights with respect to the resource. |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | Follow the ongoing discussion on this element (e.g. Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System ( OAIS), Metadata for terms and conditions and for archiving in the CARMEN project AP 2/5, etc.)? |
| Best practice | |
| Open questions | Need to determine how to use for library applications. |
| Name | Rights ¦ URI |
| Label | ... |
| Choice of Namespace | DC-LMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | URI |
| Form of Obligation | R if applicable (if there are encumbrances) |
| DC Definition | - |
| DC Comment | ... |
| DC-Lib Definition | A URI uniform resource identifier. |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | - |
| Open questions | Suggest that this be registered as a DCMI Approved encoding scheme? It is not currently. |
Back to TOC
| Name | Audience |
| Label | ... |
| Choice of Namespace | DC-Ed (to be elevated to DC cross-domain status?) |
| DC Refinement(s) | ?? |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | ?? |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | ?? |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | ?? |
| Form of Obligation | R ? |
| DC Definition | DC-Ed definition: A category of user for whom the resource is intended. |
| DC Comment | DC-Ed comment: Frequently, creators and publishers of resources in education and training explicitly state the category of user for whom the resource is intended. In like fashion, end-users in the education/training domain frequently search using audience characteristics as search terms. |
| DC-Lib Definition | - |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | ? |
| Open questions | Which DC-Ed refinements and which (DC-Ed? under discussion) encoding scheme(s) will be used? Are there any library specific refinement/encoding schemes that would be useful? |
Back to TOC
| Name | Holdings |
| Label | ... |
| Choice of Namespace | DC-LMES or DC-LMES Qualifiers? |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | ?? |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | MARC Code list for Organizations |
| Form of Obligation | MA? |
| DC Definition | - |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | Identifies the organization holding the item or from which it is available. |
| DC-Lib Comment | |
| Best practice | |
| Open questions | Possible qualifiers: Identifier (URI), institution name (encoded?), rights information (here or in the element Rights?). Any element refinements or encoding schemes would require a separate table. |
Back to TOC
5. Acknowledgements
Thanks to all members of the DC-Libraries Application Profile working group who participated and to Monika Cremer, Heike Neuroth, Carola Wessel, and Hans Becker at the Staats- und Universitaetsbibliothek Goettingen for their assistance in the presentation format.
Members of the working group:
Olga Barysheva (National Library of Russia)
Warwick Cathro (National Library of Australia)
Ann Chapman (UKOLN)
Hsueh-hua Chen (National Taiwan University)
Eric Childress (OCLC)
Robina Clayphan (British Library)
Monika Cremer (University of Goettingen)
Stina Degerstedt (Koniglige Bibliotek, Sweden)
Ricky Erway (Research Libraries Group)
Carolyn Guinchard (University of Alberta)
Rebecca Guenther (Library of Congress)
Susan Haigh (National Library of Canada)
Rachel Heery (UKOLN)
Christel Hengel (Deutsch Bibliothek)
Noriko Kando (NII)
Wei Liu (Shanghai Library)
Lynn Marko (University of Michigan)
Heike Neuroth (University of Goettingen)
Trudi Noordermeer (Royal Library of the Netherlands)
Marianne Peereboom (Royal Library of the Netherlands)
Shigeo Sugimoto (University of Library and Information Science, Japan)
Stuart Weibel (DCMI)
Robin Wendler (Harvard University)
Carola Wessel (University of Goettingen)
|
back to DC-Lib
Application Profile: Introduction back to Dublin Core™ home |
Last update: Wednesday, August 08, 2001
Rebecca S. Guenther