Ann said:
> Identifier. Should this be a global identifier of some sort.
> Is including local identifiers going to be useful?
>
> Title. Sub-title is included within the text of Title. Would
> it be better to include alternative title
> (dcterms:alternative) and put sub-titles in there?
OK, if dcterms:alternative is suitable for sub-titles rather than
substitute titles, that seems a good idea.
> Also is it
> sensible for Title to be repeatable, especially given that
> sub-title goes with the main title. Would it be better to
> have a single mandatory main title, plus multiple optional
> alternative ones?
Do we want to allow for multiple occurrences of (main) Title to provide
the value in different languages? Or do we consider a single instance of
a collection description record to be monolingual?
If we do want to permit multiple main Titles in different languages but
not multiple Titles in any one language, then we could specify that it
is repeatable only for that purpose?
> Description. I question whether it should be mandatory.
Oh! I guess I'd been working on the basis that a free-text Description
would be a required part of a CLD! I must admit it feels pretty "core"
to me, but I suppose it doesn't _have_ to be....
What do others think?
> Also are multiple descriptions sensible? Why not just put it all
> in one description?
Again, I guess the language consideration may apply? But yes, if this is
not a consideration, then Description probably does not need not be
repeatable.
> Language. Should free text be allowed as well as controlled
> vocabularies?
I think I'd have a strong preference for retaining Language with the use
of a scheme for retrieval purposes. I suppose we could also permit
Language with free text value in addition to that?
Was your reason for this to cover languages not covered by the schemes,
or did you want to provide additional human-readable information (like
"90% of the materials are in English, and the remaining 10% are a mix of
French, Spanish and Italian")?
> Note. Is this useful? Why not just use Description?
I'd also be happy to drop Note, I think.
> Subject/Concept. Would it be better just called 'subject'?
> LCSH is the only controlled vocabulary allowed. Shouldn't
> others also be allowed, eg Dewey, UNESCO?
Yes, agreed.
> Place/spatial. Would it be better called 'spatial' - place
> implies a location (where collection is) to me rather than coverage.
I must admit that I'm from the school that finds the use of these
adjectival forms as the human-readable _labels_ a bit peculiar in a
context like this where these properties are used as "stand-alone"
attributes of a resource.
I think of myself reading out a record.... The listeners are with me
when I say, "The Identifier of my collection is 'GB 248 001', and the
Title of my collection is 'The Frederick Bower Papers'", but when I say
"The Spatial of my collection is 1914-1918", they look at me as if I'm
mad. ;-)
Could we use a label of "Spatial Coverage" for the property
dcterms:spatial in this AP? Or do you feel that conflicts with
established practice elsewhere?
> Time/temporal. Would it be better called 'temporal' - time
> imples a particular time to me rather than coverage.
Same comments as for "Spatial"!
> Temporal. I suggest amending the definition to: coverage of
> *the content of* the items in the collection. Or some such -
> to distinguish it from contentsDateRange
Sounds reasonable!
> Additions:
>
> Rights. In addition to accessControl, maybe we should have:
> - dc:rights : copyright for the collection
> - dcterms: accessRights : licence requirements to use collection
OK.... I think we'd need good descriptions/definitions/notes to clarify
the use of these properties, but we can do that. Do others agree this is
a useful distinction to make here?
> Do we need 'logo' for the collection?
Possibly.
> Administrative metadata - who created the metadata, when,
> rights for using it.
On Admin metadata, I think we should include in the documentation
somewhere a note saying something to the effect that a CLD metadata
record should itself be described by appropriate Admin metatadata. And
we could maybe make some general statement about what Admin metadata
might cover (as you just did!). But I'm inclined to say it's outside the
scope of this WG to specify that Admin metadata at the same level of
detail as we specify the attributes of the collection.
Pete
|