Hi Andrew,

> The problem I see with captured is that it is actually the 
> creation date of a digitised record, according to the 
> semantics. 

Of a digitised _resource_, I think?

> The proposal says:
> "date the resource was captured". The comment says "includes 
> the date the resource was digitised or a subsequent snapshot 
> was taken...".

I think "includes" here is used in the sense of "the notion of 'capture'
includes the process of digitisation or taking a snapshot"

> A resource that has been digitised from an 
> existing resource should use date created not date captured, 
> so I don't understand the need in this case.

I agree that in principle the date of capture of a digital resource or a
photograph might be expressed using dcterms:created.

But the proposal makes clear that they are seeking to distinguish
between the creation of the content of the resource, and the creation of
the "form" of the resource (and to be fair to them, at the point the
proposal was made DCMI did have an emphasis on "content" embedded in the
definition of dc:creator - maybe not in the definition of
dcterms:created itself, but I think it's reasonable to assume it was
implied - and the proposal notes that that has been the actual use of
the property, in the library community, anyway)

So it really becomes a "FRBR issue", I think: they are really talking
about the creation of the Expression (I think) of the physical Work on
the one hand, and the creation of a Manifestation (maybe of an
Expression of a different Work, depending on how the thing is modelled)
on the other. 

But the DC Lib AP isn't based on FRBR and instead uses a "flat" "single
resource" model. 

However, within that "flat" "single resource" model, I think it is a
reasonable requirement to want to express and to make a distinction
between the date of creation of the content and the date of creation of
some particular manifestation of the content. 

And to do that they need two different properties. If they want to make
that distinction between "content" and "form", I'm not entirely sure
it's appropriate to use dcterms:created for either of them, and maybe
they should coin two new properties.... But I'm conscious that here I'm
getting into discussing the DC Lib AP rather than the property which is
on the table....

> If date captured 
> is applied to the description of the original resource then 
> there is a one-to-one problem in that the captured date is 
> about the new resource not the original resource. 

I thought that the intention behnd the use of this property was that it
was applied to the resource which was the result of the "capture" i.e.
it is intended to be used in a statement about a digital/digitised
resource, not in a statement about the physical resource which has been
digitised. But reading it again, the language is ambiguous (in "the date
the resource was digitized", you could read "the resource" as applying
either to the physical thing or the digital thing), and I agree it's
essential to have much greater clarity on that point.
 
> The second case in the comment is another where the 
> one-to-one issue arises. If a snapshot of the 'digitised 
> resource' is taken subsequent to its creation then that date 
> is about the snapshot, not about the existing resource and 
> should not appear in the date property of the exisitng resource.

Again, I thought that the intention behnd the use of this property was
that it was applied to the resource which was the result of the
"capture" i.e. it is intended to be used in a statement about the
snapshot, not in a statement about the thing being snapshotted (!). But
again, I agree it would be good to have some clarity on that point. 

Pete