DCMI Type Working Group - Review of RFC 2413
| Creators: | DCMI Type Working Group |
| Date Issued: | 1999-03-15 |
| This Version: | http://dublincore.org/documents/1999/03/15/type-rfc-review/ |
| Latest Version: | https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/type-rfc-review/ |
| Replaces: |
|
| Status: | draft |
| 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.
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.
- Some respondents have thought it useful to have a high level list. Others have thought it would satisfy no one.
- 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?
- 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).
- Issue 3: How should schemes be specified?
- 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).
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 elementHistory
Date Constituted: 1998-11-04
References
RFC2413 Dublin Core Metadata for Resource Discovery
ISO 11179 Parts 1-6, Specification and Standardization of Data Elements
URL:ftp://sdct-sunsrv1.ncsl.nist.gov/x3l8/11179/
Background and Related Resources:
- Previous Working Group on Resource Type and Format (October 1998)
- Resource Type Minimalist Proposal (July 1997)
- Roy Tennant's Resource Type Structuralist Proposal (July 1997)
- Andrew Daviel's list of external type vocabularies (July 1997)
- Alexandria Digital Library Thesaurus of Information Object Types (March 1999)