innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices

Revision of DCSV specifications

Title: Revision of DCSV specifications
Created: 2006-02-08

Following the approval of the DCMI Abstract Model in March 2005 as a DCMI Recommendation, the Usage Board undertook a revision of the legacy DCMI Recommendations -- DCMI DCSV [1], DCMI Period [2], DCMI Point [3], and DCMI Box [4] to bring their language in line with that of the DCMI Abstract Model [5].

Revised specifications were first made available for public comment as DCMI Proposed Recommendations in July 2005 [6,7,8,9], then further revised as replacements for the legacy DCMI Recommendations. The latest versions of these documents can be found at [10,11,12,13].

The main changes were: -- Removed provisional XML examples and encodings. -- Removed unused references. -- Removed unused terms from glossary. -- Terminology, wordings and document titles were changed to conform to the language of the DCMI Abstract Model (see below).

The main changes in terminology and wording were: -- Use of the term "value" was made consistent with Abstract Model (e.g., with references to a "value string"). -- The term 'structured value' was replaced with 'structured value string'. -- The terms 'label' and 'value', used to describe the parts of the components of structured values, were replaced with new terms 'componentLabel' and 'componentValue' respectively.

As of 1995, the DCMI Abstract Model supports the representation of complex structures, such as those encoded in DCSV-syntax-based encoding schemes, as "related descriptions". The DCMI Usage Board encourages implementers to consider the longer-term consequences for interoperability of packaging structured information in parsable DCSV-encoded string values as opposed to conveying that information in related descriptions using other syntax encodings.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]