|Name:||DCMI Type Working Group|
|2003-04-30||Moving Image and Still Image Proposal||Simon Pockley||Completed|
|2002-09-30||Guidance for Domains and Organisations Developing Type Vocabularies for use with Dublin Core: Outline||Ann Apps||Completed|
|2002-09-30||Annotated list of standard type encoding schemes||Ann Apps||Working Group Resource - Completed|
|2002-03-28||Proposal for a physical object DCMI Type||Ann Apps||Completed|
|2000-07-11||DCMI Type Vocabulary||Rebecca Guenther||Completed|
|1999-03-15||RFC 2413 Review||Rebecca Guenther||Completed|
Archive: Download the mail archive (426k Zip)
The DCMI Type Working Group developed a high level list of possible resource types, DCMI Type Vocabulary (previously know as DCT1), along with their definitions. This list was ratified as a scheme qualifier for the DC-Type element, after the removal of a few suggested types, on 2000-07-11.
The group then moved on to attempt to identify a more comprehensive subtype list of generally used resource types, to provide for more specific typing of a resource, the working name of this list being DCT2. Based on the Alexandria Digital Object Type Thesaurus and an earlier 'structuralist' proposal (see Resources below), Rebecca Guenther developed a prototype list which was refined following discussion on the working group's email list. This proposed DCT2 list was discussed at DC8 but no decision was made on its acceptance by the working group, reflecting the difficulty in providing a list which satisfies all domains.
At DC8, it was decided to gather lists of types used in domain-specific applications and then attempt to distill from these lists commonly used types to produce a singular, comprehensive, consistent subtype list to recommend for acceptance as a second scheme qualifier for DC-Type. Several lists of types have been identified through this exercise, some very domain-specific, including geospatial, education, health and music.
There have also been suggestions that the DCMI Type working group focus on identifying a list of domains and an appropriate type list within each of those domains, i.e. a list of type lists. And there have been questions as to whether developing a subtype list is a sensible approach at all, or whether domain- and application-specific types should be defined in domain or local namespaces within application profiles.
It has been proposed that the DC type list be the default list. Best practice would be to select at least one value from that list and if other types are desired they be included with the scheme qualifier (a URI).