innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices

From TBaker Sat Aug 19 00:05:10 2006
Message-ID: <5639156310BCBA459673B0D709D28C0F161D88@eduwbl01.edu2000.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:45:29 +0100
Reply-To: A mailing list for the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative's Usage Board <DC-USAGE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
From: Pete Johnston <Pete.Johnston@EDUSERV.ORG.UK>
Subject: Re: Draft Public Comment for DCMES
To: DC-USAGE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
In-Reply-To: A<20060818061810.GA1300@Octavius>

Hi Tom,

There seems to be some slight inconsistency in the proposals between the
use of the form "use a controlled vocabulary...." and the use of the
form "use an encoding scheme...."

The comments for dc:coverage, dc:format and dc:type say

"Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as
[name of VES]...."

For dc:language

"Recommended best practice is to use an encoding scheme, such as [name
of VES]"

But for dc:subject

"Recommended best practice is to use an encoding scheme such as a
classification or a controlled vocabulary."

I think all these three are saying essentially the same thing: "use a
(vocabulary) encoding scheme such as....", but they use two/three
different forms. Would it be preferable/possible to settle on using one
form?

Also, isn't the use of the phrase "use an encoding scheme" ambiguous?
Shouldn't it specify whether the reference is to a "vocabulary encoding
scheme" or a "syntax encoding scheme" (which have different
roles/functions in a statement in a DC metadata description)?

If you stick to the forms proposed, in the list of changes by property,
I think - if I'm reading correctly, which I might not be - there are
some discrepancies between the summary points under "Changes proposed"
and the actual changes proposed:

Coverage:
'In comment, replaces "use a value from an encoding scheme" with "use an
encoding scheme" [see Section 1.3]"' is listed but does not apply

Format:
'In comment, replaces "use a value from an encoding scheme" with "use an
encoding scheme" [see Section 1.3]"' is listed but does not apply
'In comment, replaces the phrase "use a value from a controlled
vocabulary" with "use a controlled vocabulary" [see Section 1.4]' is not
listed but _does_ apply

Type:
'In comment, replaces "use a value from an encoding scheme" with "use an
encoding scheme" [see Section 1.3]"' is listed but does not apply

Subject:
'In comment, replaces "use a value from an encoding scheme" with "use an
encoding scheme" [see Section 1.3]"' is listed but the proposed change
is actually a sort of hybrid of 1.3/1.4 in that it changes from "use a
value from a controlled vocabulary" to "use an encoding scheme"

All of which I think kind of backs up the case for settling on one way
of saying it! ;-)

From TBaker Thu Sep 21 17:43:41 2006
Subject: DCMI Public Comment on editorial changes to DCMES
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:42:55 +0100
Message-ID: <021D523700A5D840B96F5746E595D3A3154FD5@w2k3-bspex1.ad.bl.uk>
In-Reply-To: A<20060530192820.GA1580@Octavius>
From: "Clayphan, Robina" <Robina.Clayphan@bl.uk>
To: "Thomas Baker" <tbaker@TBAKER.DE>

Tom,

I have a couple of comments on the proposed editorial changes to the
DCMES. 

1. I don't want to get into the whole one-to-one debate but I am not
confident that removing the "content" word makes it any easier for
implementors.

2. In section 3 I think there is an error in the definition of
Contributor. In both the OLD and NEW displays you say "An entity
PRIMARILY responsible for making...." That "primarily" should not be
there - I believe it belongs only to "Creator".

3. In the new "date" comment: I do not understand what "...at any level
of granularity." means in this context.

4. Why has the DC Abstract Model become "DAM" rather than "DCAM"? The
"DC" acronym is so closely associated with all things DC that it seems a
shame, and a little inconsistent, not to employ it here.

5. The addition of the missing full stop in "Publisher" will probably
not prove too controversial!

Generally I think the rest of the changes are an improvement in clarity,
consistency and general tidying up.