Dublin Core
Dublin Core
About DCMI Themes Members Governing Board Usage Board Directorate
Bluesky Twitter YouTube GitHub RSS Feed

DCMI-Libraries Working Group Meeting Report, Tokyo, Japan, 24 October 2001

Originally a single session was planned for 22 October 2001. At the behest of attendees of the initial DCMI Libraries Working Group session a second session of the working group was also held on 24 October 2001. Approximately 30 people attended each session. In the absence of the chair of the working group, Rebecca Guenther (Library of Congress), who was not able to attend DC 2001, Eric Childress (OCLC) moderated both sessions.

The key activities during the two sessions were:

  1. An introduction to the DCMI Libraries Working Group [presentation]
  2. A review of the charge and activities of the working group since the DC 8 conference in Ottawa, Canada, October 2000
  3. Discussion of the proposed DC-Lib application profile
  4. The creation of a new workplan for the DCMI Libraries Working Group

In anticipation that the prepared PowerPoint presentation covering items 1 and 2 will be made available on the DCMI web site (dublincore.org) in the near future, this report will cover item 2 briefly: DCMI Libraries Working Group workplan from the DC 8 conference included the following activities:

  • Develop library application profile
  • Analyze qualifiers of use for library applications
  • Recommend best practices
  • Collect examples of DC use in libraries
  • Consider documentation on DC in MARC
  • Identify, evaluate, share existing DC use
  • Provide input in development and maintenance of crosswalks
  • Share existing data with DC registry
  • Investigate URI transparency to library database resources (e.g. authority records)

Report: Progress has been made on all of the work items or work was deferred because of the need to await the completion of activities by other bodies. Suggestions for additional activities to address several work items were received during the presentation of the report at DC 2001 (these will be forwarded to the working group chair).

  1. Discussion of the proposed DC-Lib application profile (DC-Lib AP). This activity consumed the bulk of both sessions of the working group. Findings/recommendations from the sessions: The DC-Lib AP: -- should not be a reinvention of cataloging rules or MARC, nor should practices recommended in the DC-Lib AP necessarily be constrained by existing cataloging rules -- should not be limited to a subset of DCMES or DCQ -- should provide simple, minimal rules when needed and avoid:
  2. making many (possibly any?) data elements mandatory,
  3. specifying elaborate rules of practice -- should have the following scope:
    1. define a universe of elements, qualifiers, schemes
    2. provide interpretation of selected DCMES and DCQ elements, qualifiers, schemes and define recommended practice as needed
    3. define the obligation of elements, qualifiers, schemes --Of the 15 DCMES elements, the sessions only allowed time for discussion of "title." The group concluded that "title" should be repeatable when the agency/community using the DC-Lib AP defines more than one expression of title as primary (e.g., if multiple official languages are recognized or multiple scripts are needed). All other "titles" could be/should be recorded in "title.alternative" (if using qualified Dublin Core). Group confirmed earlier impressions from the IFLA DC-Libraries Working Group meeting that the initial article should be transcribed. If a meaningful title is not available on the resource, it should be best practice to supply a title (in brackets?), but not mandatory. Also raised was the possibility of making either and indentifier or title mandatory -- not both -- on the theory that some resources (e.g., individual screens/frames in a moving image work) might be best identified by a unique identifier rather than through attempting to supply a title. --Lastly the second working group session briefly considered the question of defining a "version" element or qualifier. Opinion was divided on the need for defining a distinctive home for this information or whether version/edition information was even needed in most contexts to support identification and discovery.
  4. The creation of a new workplan for the working group. The working group endorsed the following as its workplan for DC 2001 forward:
  • Continuing work on the library AP (Target late 2001, early 2002 for completion)
  • Propose any additional elements/ qualifiers/ schemes to Usage Board in early 2002 cycle
  • Register library schemes
  • Consider how to develop partnerships to implement testbeds for library AP
  • Establish an XML scheme for library AP
  • Solicitation to library e-discussion lists for information on DC projects (to list on DC web site)
  • Work with DC agents on CCP role

Respectfully submitted,
Eric Childress
Chair, DCMI Date Working Group