DC-Registry breakout session : Agenda
This breakout session will follow on from a demonstration of the DCMI prototype registry. It would be helpful if attendees have a look at this prototype themselves before attending the workshop. See http://wip.dublincore.org:8080/registry/Registry
1. Prioritising functionality requirements
We would like to finalise the functionality of the first phase of the registry, and prioritise functionality for phase 2. We would like to decide on:
Is a search function really required in addition to 'browsing' i.e. will users want to search registry for a text string like 'title' as well as browsing through the terms in the registry?
What is the priority of multilingual functionality? Does priority differ as regards translation of the definitions? of the user interface?
Who is responsible for provision of translations for definitions and user interface? Is there an approval process?
2.1 We need to clarify the relation of registry to Usage Board (this discussion will be informed by a report back from the Usage Board meeting taking place on Monday 22 October)
2.2 What is the role of the registry in relation to the documentation of elements and qualifiers on the Web site ?
Is the registry the canonical source for the ISO 11179 style definitions used on the Web site? Is the RDF/XML schema the canonical source? Or are both derived from data held elsewhere?
2.3 Will domain specific terms and/or application profiles be registered? If so by whom?
Should terms from domain specific application profiles such as the DC Library application profile be identified in any way?
How does registration of schemes relate to the process for recording schemes under discussion in the Usage Board?
2.4 We need to clarify responsibility for the canonical expression of DC terms in RDF schemas
Who is responsible for amending and approving RDF schemas?
Who is responsible for deciding what is the most effective expression of the structure of DC terms in RDF schemas?
(For example the following schemas express classes of schemes in different ways)
- will the registry add value by annotating those schemas, by adding structure to the schemas or by adding structure independent of the schemas?
4. Liaison with registry effort elsewhere
It would be useful to have more focused liaison with registry related activity elsewhere. For example the OASIS ebXML Registry Technical Committee which seeks to build interoperable registries and repositories to support e-business. Also the Universal Description, Discovery and Integration (UDDI) work on registration of Web services, and related work on the Java API for XML Registries 1.0 (JAXR).
5. Discussion of charter for next year
Registry prototype is now available at http://wip.dublincore.org:8080/registry/Registry
The functional requirements are available at http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/~lisrmh/DCMI-registry/funreq.html
ISO/IEC 11179-1 Specification and standardization of data elements. Parts 1-6
Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1: Reference Description
Dublin Core Qualifiers
Draft RDF schemas