Usage Board telecon - report
              2006-03-16 Thu 1400 UTC 

Regrets: Andy, Stuart
Present: Tom, Diane, Joe, Andrew, Akira

Next UB Telecons (see also http://www.worldtimeserver.com/)
    2006-03-23 Thu 1400 UTC = 1500 Berlin = 0600 Seattle = 2300 Tokyo
    2006-03-30 Thu 1400 UTC = 1600 BERLIN = 0600 Seattle = 2300 Tokyo

-- Finalizing the revised DCSV specifications (Tom)

   After the end of the comment period [1], everyone present
   on the call approves the post-comment-period changes
   made by Tom -- specifically, the three last paragraphs
   of the Introduction (starting with "As of 2006") and the
   entire Section 3 ("DCSV syntax encoding schemes") [2].

   Unless Andy or Stuart have further comments, Tom
   will prepare the revised documents for publication and
   announcement with the April 10 Web build.  This time, the
   revised specs will replace both the 2006 comment-period
   version and the 2000 legacy specs as documents with the
   status DCMI Recommendation.

   [1] http://dublincore.org/news/communications/public-comment.shtml
   [2] http://stage.dublincore.org/usageboard/2006/2006-02.dcsv/2006-04-10.dcmi-dcsv.shtml

-- Changes to terms in the ELEMENTS1.1 namespace (Tom, Andy, Andrew)
   http://stage.dublincore.org/usageboard/2006/2006-01.definitions/term-changes/

   The background for this issue is that documentation of any
   (and all) changes to the original fifteen elements needs
   to be done on a priority basis in order to prepare for a
   potential NISO review later this year.

   Andrew summarized what needs to be done with the document
   above:

   -- Confirms that the changes shown in the draft do indeed
      reflect the decisions made in Madrid.

   -- The proposed changes need to be justified.
      Each individual term needs to have a justification for
      the change proposed, even if this is just cut-and-paste
      from another term.  Several sections marked (@@@@TODO)
      need to be filled in.

      An announcement giving overall context for the
      comment period and justification for the changes
      (especially regarding "content of the resource") needs
      to be finalized.

      ACTION 2006-03-16 Andrew: Wordsmith the justifications,
      also per element, with particular attention to "content
      of the resource".

   -- There has been discussion on the list about dc:language.
      In effect, the proposed change in wording (recommending
      that one follow RFC 3066 in using 2-letter codes when
      available) is at odds with the preference of many
      implementers for 3-letter codes.

      While this issue may require special attention on the
      list, Andrew would prefer to keep it part of the current
      batch of changes.

      Diane thinks that the crux of the issue is what
      "recommendation" means.  Why does DCMI need to recommend
      one or the other?  One way to handle this problem is
      to generalize the comment.  From an interoperability
      point of view, the crucial point is that whichever
      way an implementer does it, an encoding scheme should
      be used.  For example, in the comment to dc:coverage,
      we say simply: "Recommended best practice is to select
      a value from a controlled vocabulary..."

      ACTION 2006-03-16 Andrew: Suggest a comment for
      dc:language along these lines ("Use an encoding
      scheme...") and post to dc-usage for discussion.

-- Replicating ELEMENTS1.1 term URIs in DCTERMS (Tom)

   -- Brief discussion.  Diane sees a danger that people will
      think we're henceforth putting everything in DCTERMS.

-- Diane proposes to use some Seattle meeting time for a very
   quick demo of the NSDL registry

   ACTION 2006-03-16 Diane: Post to dc-usage proposing a demo
   of NSDL registry for Seattle UB meeting - brief description,
   rationale for using meeting time, time required.


-- 
Dr. Thomas Baker                                 [log in to unmask]
Director, Specifications and Documentation
Dublin Core Metadata Initiative