Well, I think your summary reads fine and I'm happy with everything on
it (I just hope we can do it all!).

I have a couple of possible late additions:

1. From my understanding (and from widespread common usage) W3CDTF can
be used as an encoding scheme for the date qualifiers (created, issued,
etc), but the DCMI terms page does not actually state this - it only
says it is valid for date and temporal
(http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#W3CDTF ).  Perhaps we
could add:
       4(e) - Confirm W3CDTF is a valid encoding scheme for the date
element refinements

2. From a completeness point-of-view, should we add:
       3(b) - Any additional schemes that arise from work item one

Thanx,
Douglas

>>> "Childress,Eric" <[log in to unmask]> 10/12/03 13:15:19 >>>
Sorry to be a silent chair for a few days.  I've gotten us a bit
behind
schedule by not summarizing swiftly.

But from the email traffic on the list is my take on the will of the
Date
WG:

Charter-related item:

1. Amend charter item 3 final bullett to read "investigate options for
the
interoperable representation of both date and time" (proposed by
Pockley)

Current charter:
"The purpose of the DC Date WG is to provide a forum for considering
issues
related to the representation of dates in metadata.

The specific goals of the WG are:
1. Provide an outlet for the discussion of  issues related to the
representation of dates in metadata
2. Foster the adoption of standards and practices that will enhance
the
interoperability of date information conveyed in Dublin Core metadata
3. In consultation with other interested DCMI WG's:
- identify categories of commonly-recorded dates which cannot be
satisfactorily represented using ISO 8601 or other well-established
international standards governing the representation of dates
- investigate options to provide for the interoperable representation
of
these types of dates."

General plan for the Date WG for 2003-2004:

Action items (under goal 3):

- 1. Analyze issues and options for addressing the following
problematic
classes of dates:
a. B.C.E. dates [LAP ; CLD WG]
b. questionable dates [LAP]
c. approximate dates [LAP]
d. date ranges (open ended ranges? other cases?) [CLD WG]
e. non-Gregorian dates
f. "large" dates (e.g., geologic periods, astronomical time)

- 2. Consider potential additional refinements for DC Date:
a. Date captured [LAP]

- 3. Consider potential additional schemes for DC Date and/or DC
Coverage:
a. ISO 8601 [LAP] (also -- which version of the standard?)


4. Other issues/items:
a. Is W3CDTF is an encoding scheme for single dates rather than a date
range? (We think so, but perhaps confirm?)
b. What does DC Library WG report of "ISO 8601 (without hyphens)
approved
June 2003 (e.g. 20030928=Sept. 28, 2003)" mean?
c. Generally clarify what the UB has already approved with respect to
date/time notation
d. Generally consider the dimension of "open" vs. restricted-access
standards in our discussions and recommendations

Questions from the chair:
- Is this a complete inventory?
- What is the disposition of the WG towards the items?

Comments from chair to start discussion:
- Amendment to charter to have WG address time notation: This seems a
reasonable request to me.  I would be inclined to think that were time
notation issues to arise in other working groups, the DC AB or UB
would
likely ask the DC Date WG to be consulted. Time seems a natural part of
the
WG's scope. It would be helpful perhaps to have Simon specify work
items
that need to be addressed (classes of time stamps, intervals?)  Simon?
;)
-Action items: I'm inclined to recommend that we accept all items

Let the discussion commence.  Opinions or comment from all members,
please.


Cheers,
Eric