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:
|
2001-10-12
|
|
Identifier:
|
|
|
Replaces:
|
|
|
Is Replaced By:
|
Not applicable
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
DC-Library Application Profile (DC-Lib)
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-Lib: 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: are there any guidelines or constraints to ensure that qualified elements are not repeated inappropriately and that qualifiers are used to appropriately identify distinctions among various repeated elements? (examples might be: do not repeat Date.Created; Should the main title not be repeated if Title.Alternative may be used)
- The Language qualifier may be used with any element: how should this be reflected on the application profile? (This is approved for all DC elements)
- Which elements are mandatory? This document indicates that Title and Identifier are mandatory; should it only be one of these elements? Any others?
- 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)?.
- Possible additional DC-Lib elements: Version; Holding Location. Are there any others?
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 | Retain initial articles and use local sorting algorithms based on language. A language qualifier may be used to indicate language of title if appropriate. (For example, see: Initial Definite and Indefinite Articles for a list of articles in various languages) |
| Open questions |
1) Obligation: what if no meaningful title is
available? Either Title or Identifier
mandatory? |
| 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 | |
| Best practice | Retain initial articles and use local sorting algorithms based on language. A language qualifier may be used to indicate language of title if appropriate. (For example, see: Initial Definite and Indefinite Articles for a list of articles in various languages) |
| Open questions |
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-Lib 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-Lib 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. This needs further discussion. |
| 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 | ? |
| 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-Lib 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 (liaison with DC-Architecture WG). It is not clear whether it would be included in the metadata for the resource or an "Agent core". |
NOTE: Attributes of Contributor (e.g. Birthdate, Affiliation, etc.) will be considered by the Agents Working Group and the DCMI-Usage Board. These cannot be included in this application profile until decisions are made. Encoding schemes also 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.
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 | If a geographic aspect is recorded use the element Coverage. |
| Best practice | It is highly recommended that either freetext or controlled vocabulary be included in the metadata where appropriate and feasible. It is also recommended that a controlled vocabulary be used with encoding scheme specified. |
| Open questions |
May Subject element be used in a unqualified form? Is there any use for qualifiers Keyword and Classification, or can this distinction be inferred by the use of an encoding scheme? |
| 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 | Always use the encoding scheme(s) for terms from a controlled vocabulary. |
| 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. NOTE: Additional encoding schemes will be registered for those used in the library domain (probably all those registered in the MARC list of subject and classification schemes as well as others that are identified). |
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). |
| Name | Description | URI |
| Label | Description | URI |
| Choice of Namespace | To be registered as DCMES Qualifier |
| 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. |
| 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 ¦ version |
| Label | Description | Version |
| Choice of Namespace | DC-LMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | Version |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | O (or MA?) |
| DC Definition | - |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | Information designating the version of edition of a work. |
| DC-Lib Comment | |
| Best practice | This element refinement will generally not be repeated. |
| Open questions |
Is adding a refinement to Description better than
other options, such as a new DC-Lib element? Is it
acceptable to leave this as a technically repeatable
element? |
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 |
| 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-Lib 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-Lib 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 DC-Lib 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-Lib interpretation about how to use this? |
| 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 | O |
| 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 |
| 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. Is this useful to include it in DC-Lib? |
| 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. Is this useful to include in DC-Lib? |
| 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-Lib 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 (uses the
alternative with hyphen). 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 |
| 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 |
| 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. Consider discussions for encoding schemes as a result of Type Working Group recommendations. |
Back to TOC
| Name | Format |
| Label | Format |
| 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 | 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 |
| 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 Internet media type of the resource. |
| DC Comment | See also: http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/media-types |
| DC-Lib Definition | |
| DC-Lib Comment | |
| Best practice | |
| Open questions |
| 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 |
| Name | Format ¦ medium |
| Label | Format | Medium |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers (2000-07-11) |
| DC Refinement(s) | Medium |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | - |
| Form of Obligation | O |
| DC Definition | The material or physical carrier of the resource. |
| DC Comment | - |
| DC-Lib Definition | |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | |
| Open questions | Is this useful to include for DC-Lib? Or do we wish to limit Format to electronic (IMT)? |
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 ¦ 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-Lib element Location. |
| Open questions | Additional encoding schemes including those above will need to be registered and would become DCMI encoding schemes. 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 | Use only when the described resource is the result of digitization of non-digital originals. Otherwise, use Relation. |
| Open questions |
Back to TOC
| Name | Language ¦ ISO639-2 |
| Label | Language | ISO 639-2 |
| Choice of Namespace | DCMES Qualifiers |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | - |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | ISO 639-2 |
| 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 is a DCMI approved encoding scheme. |
| DC-Lib Comment | The language code may be used as a value for the Language qualifier to any DCMES element. |
| Best practice | Use codes rather than text. Mandatory if applicable means if there is any spoken or written text, supply. |
| Open questions |
| 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-gb for English used in Great Britain. |
| DC-Lib Definition | |
| DC-Lib Comment | - |
| Best practice | Use of the ISO 639-2 bibliographic code is preferred. A mapping between both codes is available at http://lcweb.loc.gov/standards/iso 639-2/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 | 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 | Use this element rather than Subject for geographic coverage. |
| 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. 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? |
| 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 | 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 |
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.Temporal 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 in various applications (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 | Register as DCMES Qualifier |
| DC Refinement(s) | - |
| DC-Lib Refinement(s) | |
| DC Encoding Scheme(s) | URI |
| DC-Lib Encoding Scheme(s) | |
| 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. |
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 | O |
| 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 | Are any DC-Ed refinements or encoding scheme(s) appropriate for DC-Lib use? Are there any library specific refinement/encoding schemes that would be useful? Suggest MARC target audience codes be registered if this element is considered useful |
Back to TOC
| Name | Holding Location |
| Label | ... |
| Choice of Namespace | DC-LMES |
| 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 responsible for access to the resource. |
| DC-Lib Comment | Use for a physical location that allows the user to retrieve the item when a URI is not appropriate (e.g. for physical items not available electronically). |
| Best practice | |
| Open questions |
Possible qualifiers: institution name (encoded?), rights information (here or in the element Rights?). Any element refinements or encoding schemes would require a separate table. For a discussion of this element see: |
Back to TOC
5. Acknowledgements
Thanks to all members of the DC-Libraries Application Profile working group who participated and to the individuals 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)
6. Major changes since last update
This list includes major changes. Open questions at the beginning of the document and in specific tables may have been revised.
- Title
- Best practice for initial articles changed
- Language qualifier use added
- Title|Translated deleted
- Title|UniformTitle deleted
- Contributor
- Note added about Contributor attributes
- Contributor|Attributes deleted
- Subject
- Specifies use of geographic subject in Coverage
- Best practice note added
- Subject|DC-Lib refinements deleted (added to DC encoding scheme)
- Description
- Description|Review deleted
- Description|Version added
- Date : Date|Copyright obligation changed to Optional
- Format:
- Format unqualified added
- Format|Medium added
- Format|Notes deleted
- Identifier: Identifier|Invalid deleted
- Source: Best practice changed.
- Language: Comment added that language code may be used to qualify any element
- Coverage
- Coverage|Spatial obligation changed to mandatory if applicable; comment changed to use for geographic subject
- Coverage|Temporal obligation changed to mandatory if applicable
- Audience : Obligation changed to optional
- Holding Location:
- Name changed (previously Holdings)
- Definition revised
|
back to DC-Lib
Application Profile: Introduction back to Dublin Core™ home |
Last update: Friday, October 12, 2001
Rebecca S. Guenther