Pete:
> > Now sure, I appreciate that that might look like a case of
> > "historical revisionism" to the casual observer who knows
> > "the 15 elements came first" (or indeed only knows the 15
> > elements), but I do think we need to shift firmly towards
> > putting the DCAM at the centre of our explanations of "what
> > DC is". (If people want a history of the evolution of DC, and
> > how DCMI got from "the 15 elements" to "the qualifiers" to
> > the grammatical principles to the DCAM, OK, that's fine, but
> > that's a different document.)
Andy:
> Yes, I agree with this... though it's certainly not easy to come up with
> the one paragraph summary of what DC is. That's one of our problems!
> But talking about 'elements', 'simple' and 'qualified' doesn't help
> much!
>
> Here's my stab at a summary...
...
> This, rightly(!), relegates DCMES to a footnote and doesn't even mention
> simple and qualified! :-)
>
> On the face of it, it may seem harder to grasp than the traditional
> 'element', DCMES, 'simple DC', 'qualified DC' approach - but I think
> that is largely to do with where we come from. Personally, I think it
> is much clearer - it emphasises what is important and ignores what can
> safely be forgotten.
...
> --- cut ---
> Dublin Core (DC) is a metadata standard for describing a wide range of
> digital, physical and conceptual resources (i.e. just about anything!).
>
> A DC description is made up of a set of statements, each of which ...
I agree that the Abstract Model should be at the center of
explanations, and I like most of the text. I also think we
need to revisit the explanation for "simple" versus "qualified"
Dublin Core.
Two issues however:
1) To start with statements, property-value pairs, and URIs is
to jump in at the deep end. The notion of "core metadata
properties" has been and should continue to be a key part
of the message. Introducing "the Dublin Core" up-front also
helps explain the funny name.
> The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI), the body that facilitates
> the community development of the DC metadata standard, provides a core
> set of about 80 properties,
I suspect that the notion of "core metadata properties" really
is easier for most people to grasp than the notion of an
abstract model. I would not want DCMI to lose that focus --
80 properties is no longer really a "core".
2) "DC" and "DCMI"
> The features of the DC metadata standard are fully described
> in the Dublin Core Abstract Model (DCAM).
This is not quite how I understand our current use of
"DC" and "DCMI". To take two important examples, we
currently have the "DCMI Abstract Model" and we talk
about "Dublin Core Application Profiles" (but not "DC
Application Profiles" or "DCMI Application Profiles").
In a reasonably consistent way, we currently:
-- use "Dublin Core" instead of "DC". The exception is when
we use the names of Jiscmail lists as handles for working
groups (e.g., "DC-Architecture"). In DCMI publications,
we have I think avoided using the free-standing acronym
"DC" to mean just "Dublin Core" for quite a long time.
If we were to revive it, would we do so with the intent
to refer to "the Dublin Core" (DC-15) or to designate
the abstract model?
-- use "DCMI" for things that are managed or maintained by
DCMI as an organization -- e.g., "DCMI Usage Board".
The DCMI Abstract Model is a model put forward and
maintained by DCMI for metadata that uses DCMI terms,
(whereas a Dublin Core Application Profile is in most
cases not put forward or maintained by DCMI).
Tom
--
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
Director, Specifications and Documentation
Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
|