innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices

DCMI Usage Board Decisions

  Votes by http://www.sztaki.hu/servlets/voting 

  <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" border="0">
    <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td width="2%" bgcolor="#669999" height="32"> </td>
        <td width="88%" bgcolor="#669999" height="32">

Dublin Core Metadata Initiative

 
 
Active Votes
Closed Votes
Preferences
Logout
Manual
Policy
 

  <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" width="100%" border="0">
    <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td width="2%" bgcolor="#99cccc"> </td>

  <td bgcolor="#99cccc"><font size="4"><b>Proposed Qualifiers: Description, Format, Identifier and 
    Language (2000-04-01) </b></font></td>
      <td width="2%" bgcolor="#99cccc"> </td>

Result

Result of the Vote "Proposed Qualifiers: Description, Format, Identifier and Language (2000-04-01)", generated at 4/15/00 7:00 PM.
Number of votes cast: 24

  <p>1. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Description': Table Of Contents
  </p>

Label: Table Of Contents
Name: tableOfContents
Definition: A list of subunits of the content of the resource.
Type: Element Refinement

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 22
Reject 2


Abstain: 0

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Approve  
Renato Iannella Reject TOC is not a refinement of the element Description (but the value)
Jon Mason Reject  
David Bearman Approve A perfectly legitimate refinement which dumbs down despite what Ren says
Leif Andresen Approve  
Priscilla Caplan Approve It is certainly useful to know whether a Description contains a TOC or an Abstract.
Traugott Koch Approve  
Juha Hakala Approve  
Diane Hillmann Approve  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve refines dc:description - would be a candidate for a useful dc:type as a genre of text.
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Approve  
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Approve  
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve  
eric miller Approve  
Warwick Cathro Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>2. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Description': Release 
  </p>

Label: Release
Name: release
Definition: An identification of the edition, release or version of the resource.
Type: Element Refinement

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 11
Reject 11


Abstain: 2

Choices with highest scores:

    Approve
    Reject

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Reject "Release" is part of the identifier.
Renato Iannella Reject Not a refinement of the Description element
Jon Mason abstain  
David Bearman Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve See again: http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-usage/2000-02/0055.html
Priscilla Caplan Approve  
Traugott Koch Reject  
Juha Hakala Reject Does not refine Description element. We use a local element "Version" for specifying version information.
Diane Hillmann Reject Release information can certainly be included here, but I think it's stretching to considered it as a refinement.
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Reject  
Makx Dekkers Reject  
Roland Schwaenzl Reject Doesn't tell about the content of the resource.
Tom Baker Reject  
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Approve A distinct DC element is probably a better choice, but this is an appropriate refinement of description
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Reject  
Erik Jul abstain  
Rachel Heery Approve  
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve  
eric miller Reject  
Warwick Cathro Approve The best solution would be a new element. In the absence of this, Release needs to be recorded somewhere because it is needed in many applications.
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>3. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Description': Abstract 
  </p>

Label: Abstract
Name: abstract
Definition: A summary of the content of the resource.
Type: Element Refinement

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 22
Reject 2


Abstain: 0

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Reject  
Renato Iannella Reject Abstract is not a refinement of the element Description (but the value)
Jon Mason Approve "Abstract" is both a common convention & a formal requirement for many publications.
David Bearman Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Priscilla Caplan Approve It is certainly useful to know whether a Description contains an Abstract or a TOC.
Traugott Koch Approve  
Juha Hakala Approve  
Diane Hillmann Approve  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve refines dc:description. Would be a useful candidate for a dc:type as a genre of text.
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Approve  
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Approve  
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve  
eric miller Approve  
Warwick Cathro Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>4. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Description': Note 
  </p>

Label: Note
Name: note
Definition: Any additional information about the content of the resource.
Type: Element Refinement

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Reject 13
Approve 9


Abstain: 2

Choice with highest score: Reject

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Reject Tautological.
Renato Iannella Reject Note is not a refinement of the element Description (but the value)
Jon Mason abstain however, I can see a use for this as a legitimate qualifier.
David Bearman Reject doesn't usefully refine
Leif Andresen Approve  
Priscilla Caplan Reject Unqualified description IS a note.
Traugott Koch Reject for the reason mentioned by Priscilla
Juha Hakala Reject "Any additional information" does not sound like a refinement.
Diane Hillmann Reject  
Stuart Weibel Reject I am persuaded by the argument of others that this is redundant qualifier of an unqualified DESCRIPTION
Andy Powell abstain  
Makx Dekkers Reject Same as unqualified
Roland Schwaenzl Approve Note does not include TOC or Abstract. Unqualified dc:description includes TOC and Abstract.
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Approve  
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Reject I'd call this an "Annotation" or a "Comment". These doesn't go along very well with the semantics with the Description element.
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Reject  
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve  
eric miller Reject It seems that this is as equally ambiguous definition of that which it refines... as such I think a note is a description.
Warwick Cathro Reject Unnecessary - doesn't really refine the meaning of the element.
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>5. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Format': Extent 
  </p>

Label: Extent
Name: extent
Definition: The size or duration of the resource.
Type: Element Refinement

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 24
Reject 0


Abstain: 0

  <p><b>Choice with highest score: </b>Approve 
  </p>

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Approve  
Renato Iannella Approve  
Jon Mason Approve  
David Bearman Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Priscilla Caplan Approve  
Traugott Koch Approve  
Juha Hakala Approve  
Diane Hillmann Approve  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve  
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Approve  
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve There is no proposed encoding scheme.
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Approve  
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve  
eric miller Approve  
Warwick Cathro Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>6. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Format': Medium 
  </p>

Label: Medium
Name: medium
Definition: The media-type of the resource.
Type: Element Refinement

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 21
Reject 2


Abstain: 1

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Approve  
Renato Iannella Approve  
Jon Mason Approve  
David Bearman abstain Refining by indicating medium is necessary and useful, but the definition is pretty useless and really should be revised before we accept such a qualifier.
Leif Andresen Approve  
Priscilla Caplan Reject I approve of the concept but not the name "Medium". I would prefer something like "FileFormat" or even "MediaType". In the library community, "medium" and "media" are commonly and consistently used to refer to the physical carrier (e.g. CD-ROM, DAT) rather than the physical file-type. I realize MIME types are officially called "Internet media types" but nonetheless, going against such common usage in a large community is bound to be confusing.
Traugott Koch Approve  
Juha Hakala Approve  
Diane Hillmann Approve  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve  
Tom Baker Reject I agree that the concept and the definition need to be improved. Also, I do not believe "media-type" should be hyphenated if it is a noun.
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Approve  
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Approve Definition needs improving, not at all obvious what it means to non-specialist
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve  
eric miller Approve  
Warwick Cathro Approve Agree with others that the definition needs improvement.
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>7. <b>Question: </b>Encoding Scheme for 'Medium': IMT 
  </p>

Label: IMT
Name: IMT
Definition: The Internet MIME Type of the resource.
Type: Encoding Scheme
See also: http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/media-types

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 21
Reject 2


Abstain: 1

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Approve As Tom says - under the current model this is an encoding scheme for Format, not for the qualifier. Editorial change required.
Renato Iannella Approve  
Jon Mason Approve  
David Bearman Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Priscilla Caplan Reject See comment on Medium. I can't approve the encoding scheme if I reject the qualifier.
Traugott Koch Approve  
Juha Hakala Approve  
Diane Hillmann Approve  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve  
Tom Baker Reject This is not a qualifier of an element -- it is being balloted as a qualifier for a qualifier. Why?
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Approve  
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve Should be an encoding scheme for Format
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Approve  
Diann Rusch-Feja abstain  
eric miller Approve  
Warwick Cathro Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>8. <b>Question: </b>Encoding Scheme for 'Resource Identifier': URI 
  </p>

Label: URI
Name: URI
Definition: A URI Uniform Resource Identifier
Type: Encoding Scheme
See also: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 19
Reject 4


Abstain: 1

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Approve  
Renato Iannella Approve  
Jon Mason Approve  
David Bearman Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Priscilla Caplan Reject This is too general to be useful, and adopting this may prevent applications from using more useful and more granular encoding. My applications need to distinguish between URLs, Handles, and other identifiers, all formally URIs.
Traugott Koch Approve  
Juha Hakala Approve  
Diane Hillmann Approve Like Cilla says, not enough, but a start.
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve  
Tom Baker Approve Recognizing "URI" does not preclude our recognizing more specific (and more useful) things like "URN" later.
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Reject Need more specific encoding designation (Handle, URL, etc.) to be useful
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Reject I agree with others we should be specific to URL, URN
Diann Rusch-Feja abstain  
eric miller Approve  
Warwick Cathro Reject This is too general to be useful. We should move to encode the specific types of URI.
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>9. <b>Question: </b>Encoding Scheme for 'Language': ISO639-2 
  </p>

Label: ISO639-2
Name: ISO639-2
Definition: Technical contents of ISO 639:1988 'Code for the representation of names of languages'.
Type: Encoding Scheme
See also: http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/langhome.html

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 16
Reject 5


Abstain: 3

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Approve The identifier needs to be cleaned up - the T and B suffices are important.
Renato Iannella Reject for interoperability sake - one language scheme is sufficent (rfc1766)
Jon Mason abstain  
David Bearman Approve Multiple schemes are essential to interoperability - they do not conflict woith the goal of interoperability as Ren suggests. We cannot legislate what kinds of lists different communities use. By refusing to recognize some schemes all we do is ensure that those who need that scheme don't use DC.
Leif Andresen Approve Agree with David: we can't uniform the world. When the world have more than one etablished scheme, DC Qualifiers must reflect it.
Priscilla Caplan Approve  
Traugott Koch Approve  
Juha Hakala Approve  
Diane Hillmann Approve  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Reject doesn't work with xml:lang. ISO639-2 is incomplete information. The gadget comes in two brands /B and /T.
Tom Baker Reject Agree that multiple schemes are essential to interoperability. As Roland and Misha have pointed out, however (http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-usage/2000-01/0101.html) it is important to distinguish the two brands.
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Reject 3 defined subsets 639-2/B 639-2/T 639-1 are defined -- this needs to be more specific to be usable.
Stuart Sutton Reject  
Sigfrid Lundberg abstain  
Erik Jul abstain  
Rachel Heery Approve  
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve  
eric miller Approve  
Warwick Cathro Approve Approving, but we do need to extend this to indicate clearly whether the B ot T flavour is being used. The B flavour is widely used in MARC records.
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>10. <b>Question: </b>Encoding Scheme for 'Language': RFC1766 
  </p>

Label: RFC1766
Name: RFC1766
Definition: Internet RFC 1766 'Tags for the identification of Language' specifies a two letter code taken from ISO 639, followed optionally by a two letter country code taken from ISO 3166.
Type: Encoding Scheme
See also: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1766.txt

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 23
Reject 0


Abstain: 1

  <p><b>Choice with highest score: </b>Approve 
  </p>

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Approve  
Renato Iannella Approve  
Jon Mason Approve  
David Bearman Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Priscilla Caplan Approve  
Traugott Koch Approve  
Juha Hakala Approve  
Diane Hillmann Approve  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve  
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Approve  
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve  
Erik Jul abstain  
Rachel Heery Approve  
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve  
eric miller Approve  
Warwick Cathro Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>
  </p>

 

Contact András Micsik if you have problems with voting.
© MTA SZTAKI DSD  

  <p></p>