innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices

Title: Approval of Encoding Schemes
Agenda frozen: 2004-10-02 07:25, Saturday
Archived: 2004-11-10
Maintainer: Tom Baker
Latest version: http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/10/ISSUES/registration/
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
                   (http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/10/Meeting-packet.pdf) 
                   for copies of the key documents discussed at the meeting.

Until the Usage Board meeting in Bath in March 2004,
the issue "registration of encoding schemes" referred
to a process and tools for expediting the creation of
DCMI-maintained encoding schemes identified with URIs to be
maintained in accordance with the DCMI Namespace Policy.
An analysis of steps which would need to be undertaken
in order to put such a registry in place was posted at [1].

In Bath, Traugott was tasked with setting up a "lightweight,
purely informational database" in the form of a flat Web
page with pointers to encoding schemes. Related issues and
dependencies -- such as policy documentation which would
need to be put into place -- are summarized at [2]. As this
registry would not involve the creation of new terms (i.e.,
DCMI-maintained URIs), the idea was that this informational
page would would not be operated by the Usage Board, but by
DCMI as a whole.

As of September 2004, Traugott has confirmed that he is not in
a position to set up this Web page. In Shanghai, therefore, we
need to clarify the current Usage Board process for approving
new Encoding Schemes [3]. An Encoding Scheme requested for
the NLM Classification provides a concrete example [4].

The approval of new DCMI-maintained URIs for Encoding Schemes,
in turn, is related to the Usage Board stance towards
recommending (or not) the use of non-DCMI-maintained URIs
as Encoding Schemes in Dublin Core metadata, which we will
need to discuss in relation both to the Abstract Model [5]
and to the specific case of ISO standards [6].

As part of the process of clarifying Usage Board process,
we should examine legacy documents and prototypes related to
the older plan of a Web-based registration service [7,8,9,10].
We should consider folding parts of those documents into the
main Usage Board Process document and clearly marking the
superseded documents and Web interfaces as deprecated.

REFERENCES

[1] http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/03/ISSUES/registration/
[2] http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/03/ISSUES/registration-lightweight/
[3] http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/10/process/
[4] http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/10/nlm/
[5] http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/10/abstract-model/
[6] http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/10/iso8601/
[7] http://wip.dublincore.org/schemes/index.html.
[8] http://www.lub.lu.se/~traugott/drafts/vocab-scheme-Jan04.html
[9] http://www.lub.lu.se/~traugott/drafts/vocab-guide6.html.
[10] http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/vocabulary-guidelines/