DCMI Type Working Group - Review of RFC 2413

Creators: DCMI Type Working Group
Date Issued: 1999-03-15
Latest Version: https://dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/type-rfc-review/
Release History: https://dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/type-rfc-review/release_history/
Description: The main changes from the earlier definition in RFC 2413 are: adoption of ISO 11179 representation; deletion of examples; more general statement about use of enumerated lists and indication of SCHEME used; statement to contrast with Format.

The main changes from the earlier definition in RFC 2413 are:

  • Adoption of ISO 11179 representation
  • Deletion of examples
  • More general statement about use of enumerated lists and indication of SCHEME used
  • Statement to contrast with Format

Proposed Definition

Name: Resource Type
Identifier: Type
Definition: The nature or genre of the content of the resource
Obligation: Optional
Datatype: Character String
Maximum Occurrence: Unlimited
Comment: Recommended best practice is to select a value from an enumerated list and to identify the list being used. Type may be repeated as necessary to include different categories. To describe the form of the manifestation of the content (medium, MIME type, size, etc.) of the resource, use FORMAT element.

Default Dublin Core™ Type list

Open Issues:

(areas where there is not full consensus):

Issue 1: Do we want a recommended list for general use of Resource Type for Dublin Core™ descriptions? This would be used in addition to specialized lists as necessary.
  <dd>Some respondents have thought it useful to have a high
  level list. Others have thought it would satisfy no one.</dd>

  <dt><strong>Issue 2: Is it useful to bring out in Comment the
  different categories of "Types"? Is it understandable, and if
  not what other words could be used?</strong></dt>

  <dd>It has been proposed that the definition should
  specifically recognize the fact the DC.Type can be used for
  different types of categories. It has also been recommended
  that we offer a set of lists, where recommended best practice
  may draw terms from each. Users can also offer their own
  terms. As a compromise this report proposes using a qualified
  DC Type (in DC 2.0, to be determined at a later date) to
  indicate categories of DC Type (e.g. DC.Type.Purpose;
  DC.Type.AggregationLevel).</dd>

  <dt><strong>Issue 3: How should schemes be
  specified?</strong></dt>

  <dd>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).</dd>
</dl>

Existing RFC-2413 Definition

Type
Label: "Type"> The category of the resource, such as home page, novel, poem, working paper, technical report, essay, dictionary. For the sake of interoperability, TYPE should be selected from an enumerated list that is under development in the workshop series at the time of publication of this document. See http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Metadata/types.html for current thinking on the application of this element

History

Date Constituted: 1998-11-04

References

RFC2413 Dublin Core™ Metadata for Resource Discovery
<URL: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2413.txt>

ISO 11179 Parts 1-6, Specification and Standardization of Data Elements
URL:ftp://sdct-sunsrv1.ncsl.nist.gov/x3l8/11179/

Background and Related Resources: