JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DC-GENERAL Archives


DC-GENERAL Archives

DC-GENERAL Archives


DC-GENERAL@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DC-GENERAL Home

DC-GENERAL Home

DC-GENERAL  November 1998

DC-GENERAL November 1998

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Summary of the Dublin Core workplan for the coming year

From:

"Weibel,Stu" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

dc-general

Date:

Thu, 12 Nov 1998 09:19:53 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (130 lines)


The following outline summarizes the program of work the DC Community has
ahead of it for the coming year. A more detailed treatment will be reflected
in the DC-6 Workshop Report.  

I. DC Process

Establishing a formal process for maintenance and evolution of the Dublin
Core is a central requirement for continued progress.  The Dublin Core
Metadata Initiative needs a coherent process that makes it clear how we do
our work, how change is initiated and ratified (or not), and a clear record
of that change.   The beginnings of this process have been in place for
about a half year, in the form of two advisory committees that provide
guidance on technical issues and policy issues confronting the Dublin Core.
One of the first assignments of these committees has been to prepare a
formal process document, and I am pleased to report that an initial draft of
that document has been produced and will be refined and presented to the
community over the coming weeks.

There are many models of goverance to choose from.  The subcommittee working
on this process will identify features from various models that most closely
match the culture of open consensus development that has become a hallmark
of the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.  The process that emerges will
reflect the multi-disciplinary and international characteristics of the
Dublin Core which are at the heart of our progress thus far.

II. Polishing the Finnish finish 

RFC 2413 publically defines the semantics of DC that have been largely
stable since December of 1996.  We can think of this as DC 1.0.  Deployment
of  DC 1.0 semantics has made clear that minor changes in the definitions
are necessary to clarify the intended semantics and to reduce ambiguity
concerning their application. A review of the existing definitions will be
undertaken and small changes made as judged necessary.  The fundamental
underlying semantics will not be changed, nor will the number of elements.
One of the operational criteria for these changes is that existing
applications should require no changes as a result of these clarifications
of the definitions.  Rather, these changes should support greater
consistency across applications, and should make the semantics clearer to
new implementors.  It is anticipated that these changes will be incorporated
in a revised document that can be thought of as DC 1.1.

III. Ratifying DC Qualifier Semantics

Few if any current DC applications have been implemented without recourse to
some form of qualifiers.  We may not all agree how much qualification is
required, but pretty much everyone agrees that some is necessary. The Data
Model Working Group met in the two days following DC-6 and completed the
majority of its agenda, providing a sound  foundation for expression of
Dublin Core qualifiers.  

Clarification of qualifier semantics is critical to promoting
interoperability.  Between now and the next Dublin Core Workshop
(Tentatively scheduled for late October, 1999, in Germany), working groups
will be tasked to review qualifier semantics identified following the
Helsinki Workshop (DC-5) and reconcile these semantics with the Data Model
so that they may be expressed as consistently as possible in any given
syntax.

A parallel effort will be undertaken by these working groups to gather from
implementors additional examples of qualifiers judged to be useful and to
consolidate such semantics in proposals that will be evaluated and ratified
according to formal processes that will by then be in place.  Implementors,
this is your advance warning that such requests-for-input will be made, as
soon as the appropriate working groups are formed and populated.

IV. DC 2.0

The controversial Agent Proposal, released to the community only days before
the DC-6 meeting, sparked considerable debate on the list and at DC-6, and
raised related questions (for example, the wide recognition that Source is
just a variety of Relation).
These issues emerged roughly simultaneously in the data modelling process
and, importantly, from the efforts of independent groups of implementors and
educators trying to teach resource description using the Dublin Core.  In
the early days of the DC initiative, when we were thinking of DC primarily
as a set of semantic labels, these structural mismatches were not
particularly troublesome.  As we have grown more sophisticated in our
thinking, and as more communities have examined the Dublin Core for their
own use, the importance of a sound underlying structure has become evident.
Reconciling the needs of museums and libraries, for example, has raised many
difficulties that are best solved by sound data modelling.

Recent dialog with what I will loosely describe as the rights-management
community has amplified the importance of such models.  This community is
represented in the INDECS project, an EU-funded project to reconcile the
functional metadata requirements of several well established content
communities (including the DOI Initiative).  Those of you who read Godfrey
Rust's criticisms of the Dublin Core in last July's DLib magazine will be
pleased to know that Godfrey and his colleagues made valuable contributions
to DC-6, and further, that our preliminary discussions leave both groups
(INDECS/DOI and DC) strongly optimistic that the underlying data models of
the two efforts can be reconciled.   This reconciliation will benefit both
communities.  I have for some time now been using the notion of the Internet
Commons as a metaphor for the importance of the DC community's
cross-disciplinary focus.  This development is the strongest example thus
far of the importance of such cooperation.

A working group has been formed to carry forward this effort jointly.  The
expected result of such efforts will be a proposal for restructuring the
Dublin Core and might be thought of as Dublin Core 2.0.  It will be largely
backward compatible with DC 1.x.  It will probabaly have fewer top level
elements.  It will depend on formal qualifiers for refining the semantics of
the top level elements. It will have an underlying data model that will be
accomodate the changes in the electronic environment that cause tension in a
resource description model based in traditional bibliography.  

DC 2.0 will provide an evolutionary path for Dublin Core.  The great
majority of work on qualifier semantics will find a natural home there.  It
will not isolate DC 1.x applications, anymore than HTML 4.0 has isolated
HTML 1.0.  It will provide a development path that gives the Dublin Core
room to grow with our own increasing sophistication about metadata.  

I personally came away from DC-6 with a good deal of optimism about our path
forward.  Each of previous workshops was marked by controversy that sparked
important steps forward.  DC-6 was no exception.  The major schism in this
meeting lay between those who want stability for what we have done thus far
and those who are reaching for the next level.  It is essential that BOTH of
these objectives be met.  Fortunately, the great majority of the supporting
tasks for the two objectives lie on a common path.  I look forward to
working with all of you to accomplish them.

Nach Frankfurt im Oktober, 1999!

stu




Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

February 2024
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
March 2020
February 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager