DCMI Government Community on DCMI

DCMI Government Working Group - Application Profile

Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0000

DCMI-Government Working Group

DC-GOV APPLICATION PROFILE

Introduction

Questions

Comments on all aspects of this document are invited. Questions about particular elements and refinements, for which answers are desperately needed, are included throughout the document in bold italics.

DC-Government

Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0000

Open Issues

•Record keeping/records management metadata

–A HUGE issue for all

–New working group?

–In scope of DC-Gov?

–No time now?

DC-Government

Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0000

Describing Services

•Issues:

–Why do we want metadata to do for services: deliver/inform?

–Is it in scope for DC-Gov?

–Definition and boundaries of a service

–Multi-agency service—distributed service (one service, multiple agencies)

–One-to-many service delivery

–Multiple service access points

–Entry points

–How does “subject” work for service

–Relationship between services & Government functions

–Can/should metadata influence UI?

–Do we need new elements and/or qualifiers to describe services?

–Authentication—what is needed? Is it a metadata issue?

•Activities:

–Informal survey based on issues list, via email (Andrew by 1 Dec. 2001)

–Develop functional requirements (John Roberts by 28 Feb. 2002)

–Definitions??

DC-Government

Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0000

Application Profile

•Subject.Category—useful constructing browse hierarchies

–Controlled Vocabulary?

–Resubmit with justification + examples; need to look at open issues; liaise with DC-Lib

•Subject.Keywords—Clarify with examples etc.

•Type—Solve with controlled vocabularies

–Working Group to exchange item type lists to establish commonalities

–Talk to DC-Collection re aggregation

DC-Government

Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0000

Application Profile

•Date Acquired—Establish need through email list

•isBasedOn/isBasedFor—rewrite definition, link to definition of isVersionOf/hasVersion

–Maewyn to seek clarification from stakeholders

–Translation qualifier? (Nancy to post)

•Access Marking—Qualifier and controlled vocabulary (alternate mechanisms); submit both

•Previous Access Marking—Clarify with examples

•Access Rights—clarification of definition

•Rights.Copyright—Liaise with DC-Lib

•

DC-Government

Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0000

DC-Government

2nd Breakout Session

23 October 2001

DC-Government

Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0000

Notes

Outline

DC-Government


	2^nd Breakout Session
	23 October 2001

  </div>
</td>

Application Profile


	Date AcquiredEstablish need through email list
	isBasedOn/isBasedForrewrite definition, link to definition of isVersionOf/hasVersion
	Maewyn to seek clarification from stakeholders
	Translation qualifier? (Nancy to post)
	Access MarkingQualifier and controlled vocabulary (alternate mechanisms); submit both
	Previous Access MarkingClarify with examples
	Access Rightsclarification of definition
	Rights.CopyrightLiaise with DC-Lib

  </div>
</td>

Application Profile


	Subject.Categoryuseful constructing browse hierarchies
	Controlled Vocabulary?
	Resubmit with justification + examples; need to look at open issues; liaise with DC-Lib
	Subject.KeywordsClarify with examples etc.
	TypeSolve with controlled vocabularies
	Working Group to exchange item type lists to establish commonalities
	Talk to DC-Collection re aggregation

  </div>
</td>

Describing Services


	Issues:
	Why do we want metadata to do for services: deliver/inform?
	Is it in scope for DC-Gov?
	Definition and boundaries of a service
	Multi-agency servicedistributed service (one service, multiple agencies)
	One-to-many service delivery
	Multiple service access points
	Entry points
	How does subject work for service
	Relationship between services & Government functions
	Can/should metadata influence UI?
	Do we need new elements and/or qualifiers to describe services?
	Authenticationwhat is needed? Is it a metadata issue?
	Activities:
	Informal survey based on issues list, via email (Andrew by 1 Dec. 2001)
	Develop functional requirements (John Roberts by 28 Feb. 2002)
	Definitions??

  </div>
</td>

Open Issues


	Record keeping/records management metadata
	A HUGE issue for all
	New working group?
	In scope of DC-Gov?
	No time now?

  </div>
</td>

Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0000

Click to edit Master title style

Click to edit Master text styles

Second level

Third level

Fourth level

Fifth level

Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0000

This presentation contains content that your browser may not be able to show
properly. This presentation was optimized for more recent versions of Microsoft
Internet Explorer.

DCMI Government Community

Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0000

REPORT ON GOVERNMENT WORKING GROUP BREAKOUT SESSIONS, TOKYO WORKSHOP & CONFERENCE, 22 & 23 OCTOBER 2001

The DC-Government Working Group (WG) met in two breakout session during the DC Workshop in Tokyo to review work accomplished to date, and to agree on the 2001-2002 work agenda. The first session was held in the afternoon of Monday 22 October 2001 with about 20 participants with the following agenda:

DCMI Government Community

Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0000

DCMI-Government Working Group

Survey of Activities

Deliverable: Survey of Government Implementation of DC

Objectives are to survey the use of DC in government settings, identify usage and implementation of DC elements and extensions, identify key challenges in implementation, and provide recommendations for future action based on these findings and discussions.

DCMI Government Community

Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0000

Title:

Functional Requirements for Describing Services

Discussion paper for DC-Gov

Creator:

DCMI Government Community

Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0000

DCMI Government Working Group

Proposal: Security Classification qualifier for Rights element

Name:

protectiveMarking

Label:

SecurityClassification

Definition:

The classification allocated to the resource indicating its official security status or other restrictions on its availability.

Comment:

The purpose of this qualifier is to facilitate proper and appropriate management of sensitive or security classified records.

Examples:

Example of values (Australian):

protectiveMarking="Top Secret"
protectiveMarking="Secret"
protectiveMarking="Confidential"
protectiveMarking="Restricted"

Example of values (Danish):
protectiveMarking="Yderst hemmeligt"
protectiveMarking="Hemmeligt"
protectiveMarking="Fortroligt"

Example of values (UK):
protectiveMarking="Top secret"
protectiveMarking="Commercial in confidence"
protectiveMarking="Staff in confidence"

A citizen-user finds a reference to a classified resource. The protective marking tells the user why access is not possible. A user employed in an agency finds a reference to a protectively marked resource. This user needs to see how the resource is classified.

Type of Term:

Element refinement

Term Qualified:

rights

Why Needed:

Protective markings are needed e.g. on intranets where resources with a variety of classifications will be stored but also on metadata databases designed to indicate that an information resource exists even if it is not actually available to the public. Such databases can be needed to meet access to information legislation requirements.

Proposal Status:

Conforming

Related DCMI Terms:

None

Related non-DCMI Terms:

Similar could be GILS metadata element: "Access Constrains. Security Classification Control" (www.gils.net/prof_v2.html#annex_e) and MoReq metadata element: "security category" (www.cornwell.co.uk/moreq.html)

Impact on Applications:

Some or minor impact. But benefits are enhanced interoperability

About the Proposers:

DC-Government Working Group: http://dublincore.org/groups/government/
DC-Government Working Group Discussion List Archive: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/DC-GOVERNMENT.html

DCMI Government Community

Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0000

DCMI-Government Working Group

DC-GOV APPLICATION PROFILE

Available for comments until 20 February 2002. If you are a member of the DC-Government Mailing List, please send comments directly to the mailing list. If you are not a member of the mailing list and do not wish to join, please send comments directly to the working group chairs.

DCMI Government Community

Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0000

DCMI-Government Working Group

DC-GOV APPLICATION PROFILE

Introduction

Questions

DCMI Government Community

Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0000

MIReG Metadata Framework - Element Set

Draft - 2001-08-28

Additions to Dublin Core™ for the retrieval of government information

Elements needed for the accurate and efficient retrieval of information, especially electronic information, held on web sites, intranets and in organisation's internal file management systems.

DCMI Government Community

Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0000

Title:	International Recordkeeping/Records Management Metadata Initiatives: Report and Recommendations for DC Advisory Board
Creator:	John Roberts, Archives New Zealand
Creator:	Andrew Wilson, National Archives of Australia
Date Issued:	2002-04-23

1. Background

DCMI Government Community

Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0000

DCMI-Government Working Group

Title:	DC-GOV non DCMI terms
Creator:	Maewyn Cumming
Creator:	Andrew Wilson
Creator:	Palle Aagaard
Date Issued:	2001-03-14
Identifier:	http://dublincore.org/groups/government/DCMI-gov-proposal-2002-04-18.html
Replaces:	none
Is Replaced By:	Not Applicable
Latest version:	http://dublincore.org/groups/government/profile-200111/
Status of document:	This is a Dublin Core™ Metadata Initiative Government Working Group final draft proposal for submitting to the DCMI Usage Board
Description of document:	Dublin Core™ is already being used by practically all governments that are attempting to improve access to their information. However, though seen as the ideal starting point, it is not sufficient for our varied and specialised needs.