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: Relation (2000-04-01) </b></font></td>
      <td width="2%" bgcolor="#99cccc"> </td>

Result

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

  <p>1. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Relation': Is Version Of 
  </p>

Label: Is Version Of
Name: isVersionOf
Definition: The described resource is a version, edition, or adaptation of the referenced 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  
Priscilla Caplan Approve  
Traugott Koch Approve  
Juha Hakala Approve  
Diane Hillmann Approve  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve  
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve Approve the qualifier, but the definition is not useful. It needs to specify that this is a difference in intellectual content to distinguish it from IsFormatOf. I'm voting yes contingent on a change to the definition.
Eric Childress Approve  
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Approve  
Warwick Cathro Approve I agree with Rebecca's comment. The Working Group should be asked to consider this, and perhaps the IFLA Functional Requirements document, in reviewing the definition.
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve  
eric miller Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>2. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Relation': Replaces 
  </p>

Label: Replaces
Name: replaces
Definition: The described resource supplants, displaces, or supersedes the referenced 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  
Priscilla Caplan Approve  
Traugott Koch Approve  
Juha Hakala Approve  
Diane Hillmann Approve  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve  
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve This needs some revision to the definition. The term "continues" is essentially what's meant here, but these other terms are used (supplants, displaces) without being too clear. Please add "is continued or absorbed by", terms that are more understandable.
Eric Childress Approve  
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve Seems almost to be a refinement of HasVersion
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Approve  
Warwick Cathro Approve  
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve  
eric miller Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>3. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Relation': Requires 
  </p>

Label: Requires
Name: requires
Definition: The described resource requires the referenced resource, either physically or logically.
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 abstain unfortunate use of "requires" in definition of "requires"
David Bearman Approve Despite what Jon says, the Label is a shorthand human readable form of the definition. Using the central term in the definition is not inherently bad practice
Priscilla Caplan Approve  
Traugott Koch Approve  
Juha Hakala Approve  
Diane Hillmann Approve  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve  
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Reject This is not the same type of relationship as the others. Does this just apply to software? The definition needs to be improved and examples added.
Eric Childress Approve  
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Reject Too specialised
Warwick Cathro Approve I am voting to Approve, although I think that the meaning of the definition is unclear. This qualifier has a use in applications such as government services where a document such as a licence requires another document (or licence) in order ot be valid. It is used in the AGLS (Australian Government Locator Service) standard.
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve  
eric miller Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>4. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Relation': Is Part Of 
  </p>

Label: Is Part Of
Name: isPartOf
Definition: The described resource is a physical or logical part of the referenced 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  
Priscilla Caplan Approve  
Traugott Koch Approve  
Juha Hakala Approve  
Diane Hillmann Approve  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve  
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Approve  
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Approve  
Warwick Cathro Approve  
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve  
eric miller Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>5. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Relation': References 
  </p>

Label: References
Name: references
Definition: The described resource references, cites, or otherwise points to the referenced 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  
Priscilla Caplan Approve  
Traugott Koch Approve  
Juha Hakala Approve  
Diane Hillmann Approve  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve  
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Approve  
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Approve  
Warwick Cathro Approve  
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve  
eric miller Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>6. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Relation': Has Part 
  </p>

Label: Has Part
Name: hasPart
Definition: The described resource includes the referenced resource either physically or logically.
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  
Priscilla Caplan Approve  
Traugott Koch Approve  
Juha Hakala Approve  
Diane Hillmann Approve  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve  
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Approve  
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Approve  
Warwick Cathro Approve  
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve  
eric miller Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>7. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Relation': Has Version 
  </p>

Label: Has Version
Name: hasVersion
Definition: The described resource has a version, edition, or adaptation, namely, the referenced 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 abstain  
David Bearman Approve  
Priscilla Caplan Approve  
Traugott Koch Approve  
Juha Hakala Approve  
Diane Hillmann Approve  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve  
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Reject Need a clearer distinction between this and IsVersionOf. As with IsFormatOf/HasFormat, there must be a temporal quality here in that one would be preexisting. There is the same problem with maintenance here as with HasFormat, since the metadata would have to be continuously updated to reflect each version, edition, adaptation. IsOtherFormatOf (or IsFormatOf meaning another format) suffices.
Eric Childress Approve  
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Reject  
Warwick Cathro Approve We need a default if we don't know which one is the primary (or earlier) version. Presumably the default will be HasVersion?
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve  
eric miller Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>8. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Relation': Is Referenced By 
  </p>

Label: Is Referenced By
Name: isReferencedBy
Definition: The described resource is referenced, cited, or otherwise pointed to by the referenced 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  
Priscilla Caplan Approve  
Traugott Koch Approve  
Juha Hakala Approve  
Diane Hillmann Approve  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve  
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Approve  
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Approve  
Warwick Cathro Approve  
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve  
eric miller Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>9. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Relation': Is Replaced By 
  </p>

Label: Is Replaced By
Name: isReplacedBy
Definition: The described resource is supplanted, displaced, or superceded by the referenced 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  
Priscilla Caplan Approve  
Traugott Koch Approve  
Juha Hakala Approve  
Diane Hillmann Approve  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve  
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve This needs some revision to the definition. The term "is continued by" is essentially what's meant here, but these other terms are used (supplanted, displaced) without being too clear. Please add "is continued or absorbed by", terms that are more understandable.
Eric Childress Approve  
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Approve  
Warwick Cathro Approve  
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve  
eric miller Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>10. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Relation': Is Format Of 
  </p>

Label: Is Format Of
Name: isFormatOf
Definition: The described resource is essentially the same intellectual content of the pre-existing referenced resource and is presented in another format.
Type: Element Refinement

  <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  
Priscilla Caplan Approve  
Traugott Koch Approve  
Juha Hakala Approve  
Diane Hillmann Approve  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve  
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve I approve the qualifier, but not the definition. The "pre-existing" should be removed and this qualifier should just be the same intellectual content of the reference resource that is presented in another format.
Eric Childress Approve  
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Approve  
Warwick Cathro Approve I agree with Rebecca's comment.
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve  
eric miller Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto abstain Difference between "Is Format Of" and "Has Format" is ambiguous.

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>11. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Relation': Has Format 
  </p>

Label: Has Format
Name: hasFormat
Definition: The described resource pre-existed the referenced resource, which is essentially the same intellectual content presented in another format.
Type: Element Refinement

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 19
Reject 3


Abstain: 2

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Reject What Rebecca says. Pre-existing is unnecessary here. The other stuff is managed with the "replaces" pair.
Renato Iannella Approve  
Jon Mason abstain  
David Bearman Approve  
Priscilla Caplan Approve  
Traugott Koch Approve  
Juha Hakala Approve  
Diane Hillmann Approve  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve  
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Reject This is difficult to determine and not useful. How do you know which existed first, and what if an earlier format is reformatted? Then does is it no longer pre-existing? Maintenance of this is impossible because you would have to add to it continuously, considering how frequently a resource could be reformatted. IsOtherFormatOf is sufficient to show the relation of a different format.
Eric Childress Approve  
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Reject  
Warwick Cathro Approve Again, we need a default if we don't know which resource is the primary one - presumably the default will be HasFormat?
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve  
eric miller Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto abstain Difference between "Is Format Of" and "Has Format" is ambiguous.

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>12. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Relation': Is Required By 
  </p>

Label: Is Required By
Name: isRequiredBy
Definition: The described resource is required by the referenced resource, either physically or logically.
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 Approve  
Jon Mason Approve  
David Bearman Approve  
Priscilla Caplan Approve  
Traugott Koch Approve  
Juha Hakala Approve  
Diane Hillmann Approve  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve  
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Reject It is not clear how this is used. Is it just for software? If so, a maintenance problem. Could we imagine that for example a record for ReadAudio really would tell all the programs that require it? If there are other examples, they need to be given because otherwise I cannot fathom how this would be used.
Eric Childress Approve  
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Reject  
Warwick Cathro Approve  
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve  
eric miller Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>13. <b>Question: </b>Encoding Scheme for 'Relation': 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 20
Reject 2


Abstain: 2

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Approve  
Renato Iannella Approve  
Jon Mason Approve  
David Bearman Approve  
Priscilla Caplan Approve  
Traugott Koch Approve  
Juha Hakala Approve  
Diane Hillmann Approve  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve  
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Reject Need specific coding scheme to be useful (handle, URL, etc.)
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery abstain  
Warwick Cathro Reject URI is too vague to be a real encoding scheme.
Diann Rusch-Feja abstain  
eric miller Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>
  </p>

 

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

  <p></p>