innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices
Topic: Review of application profiles
Agenda frozen: 2004-10-02 07:25, Saturday
Maintainer: Tom Baker
Latest version: http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/10/ISSUES/profiles/
See also: http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/10/ISSUES/
Note: If any of the links below are broken, please refer to
the meeting packet
for copies of the key documents discussed at the meeting.
In Bath, we undertook a partial review of PBCore, the
US National Public Broadcasting metadata dictionary .
This resulted in grateful acknowledgement of the DCMI Usage
Board on the part of NPR .
In Bath, we reaffirmed that the Usage Board can assign
the the status of "conforming" to an Application Profile
based on a significantly more thorough review focused on
elements and element refinements at the point of review.
The AP designated as "conforming" (i.e., a snapshot of the
AP document at the time reviewed) would be archived on the
DCMI Website. Changes to the AP should result in a new AP
and resubmission to the UB (i.e., for new "time stamp").
The documents describing this process are:
As of September 2004, the Application Profile furthest along in
the pipeline is DC-Lib, a new version of which was issued on
13 September 2004 . According to the DC-Lib editor Robina
Clayphan, there are two obvious areas where clarification is
needed from the Usage Board before the AP can be completed
and submitted for a formal review:
1) How to characterize the refinements for Contributor
- I believe there is an ongoing UB discussion
about a subset of LC roles to refine Contributor.
Rather than list them all as refinements in DC-Lib
I give a notional URL of the list. Notional as the
subset does not yet exist as far as I know - is such a
subset in preparation by the UB? Is this an acceptable
way to declare these refinements in an AP?
2) How to describe/define encoding schemes in the AP.
In the AP you will see I refer to encoding schemes
in the table describing the element it qualifies and
have then created a section at the end of the AP with a
table per encoding scheme following the model Pete uses.
I came across a few difficulties which I detail below.
This is all part of the ongoing issue about registering
In Shanghai, we should discuss these issues and decide whether
we think the DC-Lib profile will be ready to be reviewed at
the next UB meeting following Shanghai and what preparation
(shepherding, public comment periods) that would entail.