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: Subject, Title and Type (2000-04-01) 
    </b></font></td>
      <td width="2%" bgcolor="#99cccc"> </td>

Result

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

  <p>1. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for "Subject": Classification 
  </p>

Label: Classification
Name: classification
Definition: Subject identified by notation (code) taken from a controlled classification scheme.
Comment: The name of the controlled classification scheme from which the classification is derived should always be identified as a value qualifier Existing resource discovery implementations treat classification notation (codes) differently to 'words' describing `subject. Typically notation is used to create a browsing structure whereas words are not, notation is not displayed in retrieved lists whereas 'subject words' are displayed. It is important for software to precisely recognise notations as different from 'subject words'. Looking for numeric strings cannot be relied on as notations may be alphanumeric so it is useful to identify them by means of a qualifier. It is unrealistic to expect software to identify notations as such by means of the value qualifier for subject, as there is a potentially huge list of value qualifiers which cover subject headings, and thesauri as well as classification notations.
Type: Element Refinement

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 14
Reject 6


Abstain: 4

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Approve  
Renato Iannella Reject This is not an element refinement - has nothing to do with Subject
Jon Mason abstain this qualifier is somehwat unfriendly & the commentary makes it worse.
David Bearman Reject not a refinement. won't dumb down. In any case, it isn't a classification but a classification code.
Priscilla Caplan Approve Subject classifications such as DDC and UDC are excellent means of representing subject content and are quite valid for Subject. Practically, as the WG points out, there must be some way of indicating Subject contains a classifcation code.
Traugott Koch Approve Together with keywords (controlled ones from thesauri and other vocabularies, or uncontrolled ones), classification is the main expression of subject/topic, used in many communities. The code is the main expression for a given classification and is normally independent from a specific human language. An encoding scheme needs always to be specified, as for dates. It does dumb down together with the encoding scheme information.
Juha Hakala Reject Value qualifier (that must be used) does specify implicitly whether the system used to describe the content is a classification or a subject headings list. I doubt if this qualifier would provide much added value. Only knowing that the thing you need to deal with is a classification notation does not help you to deal with it properly.
Diane Hillmann Reject I don't think we need this, since classification MUST be qualified by scheme to be useful, in any case.
Stuart Weibel abstain  
Andy Powell Approve Comment too long!
Makx Dekkers Approve Definition and Comment confuse me as they talk about "notation (code)". In my understanding, "notation" can be words from thesauri and thus not necessarily codes.
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve Only makes sense for qualified DC in case encoding scheme is explicitly provided. Code needs explicit additional advice how to dumb down.
Tom Baker Reject This idea needs work. Unclear whether it is a refinement; maybe it is even redundant. The comment needs tightening too; do we use the term
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Approve Given that an encoding scheme should be designated to make a classification value genuinely useful, I don't have strong feelings on this, but it may be a useful qualifier under some circumstances.
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve It is somewhat redundant with an element refinement here. Classification systems are used a lot in DC metadata, but the fact that a given notation is a classification system has by tradition been implied by its value encoding. I feel that we currently overdoing the substructure by adding redundant information all over the place. A DCMIBox has to be spatial coverage, Format with value encoding IMT has to be Medium, etc... But I can live with this
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Approve Classification codes need to be distinguished from words somehow, this qualifier does this. Comment needs to be changed for public use.
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve  
eric miller Reject This does not seem like a refinement to me at all , but rather a superset of encoding schemes that have something to do with classification numbers.
Warwick Cathro abstain There should be few enough classification schemes for an indexing engine to maintain a list of them, if these values need to be excluded from text based indexes.
Shigeo Sugimoto abstain  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>2. <b>Question: </b>Encoding Scheme for 'Subject': LCSH 
  </p>

Label: LCSH
Name: LCSH
Definition: Library of Congress Subject Headings
Type: Encoding Scheme

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 22
Reject 1


Abstain: 1

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Approve When will this be available online??
Renato Iannella Reject Not available online
Jon Mason Approve  
David Bearman Approve useful to some communities, which is all we can say about any scheme. I consider the objection that it isn't online to be completely irrelevant to this or any other scheme used by some community
Priscilla Caplan Approve As David says, whether an encoding scheme is available online is completely irrelevant. We don't even require the resources described by DCMES to be available online!
Traugott Koch Approve Most and all the best subject vocabularies are -at the moment- not online available and/or require a license. If DC rejects vocabularies for that reason it will not be useful as a metadata format in most communities.
Juha Hakala Approve Just a generic note: it is nice to have these examples formally specified in here, but we need to register many more classifications and subject headings to get better global coverage. I need to register e.g. Label YSA to Finnish Subject Headings.
Diane Hillmann Approve  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl abstain Should not be used in online available records as long as it isn't available online itself.
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Approve  
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve It is a suprise to me that we have to vote on these different classificationsystems/subject headings things. A registry would do...
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Approve These particular schemes are listed as examples, they are not meant to be exclusive.
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve  
eric miller Approve I think we should liason with the appropriate communities to encourage these groups to make web-accessible the DCMI endorsed encoding schemes.
Warwick Cathro Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>3. <b>Question: </b>Encoding Scheme for 'Subject': MeSH 
  </p>

Label: MeSH
Name: MESH
Definition: Medical Subject Headings
Type: Encoding Scheme

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 20
Reject 1


Abstain: 3

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox abstain Is this too specialised for the first round? i.e. this is not a cross-domain vocabulary, so perhaps should not be privileged.
Renato Iannella Reject Not available online
Jon Mason abstain  
David Bearman Approve  
Priscilla Caplan Approve  
Traugott Koch Approve International subject specific vocabularies like MeSH are widely used and often dominate all subject description of large communities, like the biomedical and health sector in this case. Such vocabularies should be recognised by DC as soon as possible. There are more than the ones mentioned in this ballot.
Juha Hakala Approve  
Diane Hillmann Approve  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl abstain comment to 2. applies.
Tom Baker Approve I agree we should recognize common subject headings as soon as possible, regardless whether they are online.
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>Encoding Scheme for 'Subject': DDC 
  </p>

Label: DDC
Name: DDC
Definition: Dewey Decimal Classification
Type: Encoding Scheme
See also: http://www.oclc.org/fp/

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 22
Reject 1


Abstain: 1

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Approve  
Renato Iannella Reject Not available online
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 abstain comment to 2. applies.
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>5. <b>Question: </b>Encoding Scheme for 'Subject': LCC 
  </p>

Label: LCC
Name: LCC
Definition: Library of Congress Classification
Type: Encoding Scheme

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 21
Reject 1


Abstain: 2

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Approve  
Renato Iannella Reject Not available online
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 abstain comment to 2. applies
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>6. <b>Question: </b>Encoding Scheme for 'Subject': UDC 
  </p>

Label: UDC
Name: UDC
Definition: Universal Decimal Classification
Type: Encoding Scheme

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 21
Reject 1


Abstain: 2

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Approve  
Renato Iannella Reject Not available online
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 abstain comment to 2. applies: It would have been more useful for DCMI to collect online available Schemes and recommend some of those.
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>7. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Title': Alternative 
  </p>

Label: Alternative
Name: alternative
Definition: Any known or used form of the title used as a substitute or alternative to the formal title (or title under which the resource is formally known).
Comment: This qualifier can include Title abbreviations as well as translations.
Type: Element Refinement

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 18
Reject 5


Abstain: 1

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Approve  
Renato Iannella Approve  
Jon Mason Approve  
David Bearman Reject Like any element, title can be repeated. Adding that one repeat is an alternative for another doesn't do anything.
Priscilla Caplan Approve Most search & retrieval applications will display brief bibliographic description for "hits" which includes only 1 title. You have to know which of multiple Title elements is the primary title and which are alternative.
Traugott Koch Approve For searching, indexing and discovery applications etc. it is necessary to be able to differentiate between an original title and translations.
Juha Hakala Approve Not very useful for searching per se, but nice to have for e.g. display purposes.
Diane Hillmann Approve Approved with some level of queasiness. In cases where some weighting of titles is needed, this can provide a method, otherwise simple repetition is preferable.
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Reject Definition does not make it clear when/if simply repeating the Title element should be used in preference to using the Alternative refinement.
Makx Dekkers Reject See no need for this.
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl abstain use rdf:ALT
Tom Baker Reject I see the usefulness of this distinction in some circumstances, but the definition should be revised: eg, the text actually says that the qualifier can include abbreviations, which is confusing.
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Approve  
Stuart Sutton Reject  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Approve Labelling a title as alternative means it is not the main, more usual title. This is different semantically from a repeated Title element.
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve THE ABOVE URL FOR THE TITEL WG IS NOT CORRECT. THIS HAS BEEN UPDATED AND I AM SORRY TO SEE THAT THIS HAS NOT BEEN INTEGRATED HERE!!!
eric miller Approve  
Warwick Cathro Approve Agree with Priscilla's comments.
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>8. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Resource Type': The DCT1 Type 
  Vocabulary 
  </p>

Label: DCT1
Name: DCT1
Definition: A controlled vocabulary indicating the nature or genre of the resource.
Type: Encoding Scheme
See also: http://www.loc.gov/marc/dc/typequalif-19991210.html

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 19
Reject 5


Abstain: 0

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Approve DCT1 is not a proper ontology, but can serve as "hints for searching".
Renato Iannella Approve  
Jon Mason Approve  
David Bearman Reject An extremely imperfect scheme not used by an existing community which DCMI is not in any position to maintain.
Priscilla Caplan Reject DCT1 offers primarily media types, which information already has a place in Format. Rather than encourage this redundancy, a list of basic genre types would be much more useful.
Traugott Koch Approve  
Juha Hakala Approve  
Diane Hillmann Approve As with "Medium" list, this is a beginning that is unlikely to fill many needs, but provides only a starting point. Of all the lists we're proposing, this is the most likely to be modified by specialized communities. So be it.
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Reject High chance dct1 will not be used.
Tom Baker Reject  
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Approve  
Stuart Sutton Approve  
Sigfrid Lundberg Approve We are still using a slightly massaged version of Roy Tennants "structuralist" type list, which is very nice since you can actually build a browsing system on top of it.
Erik Jul Reject  
Rachel Heery Approve A starting point.
Diann Rusch-Feja Approve  
eric miller Approve  
Warwick Cathro Approve We need some scheme for TYPE, and I don't see any existing scheme maintained by another community which will serve.
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>
  </p>

 

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

  <p></p>