Dear All,
Some comments on the DC-GOV proposal:
1. Date qualifier 'acquired'. There seems to be a prolifieration of
qualifiers for date appearing? Is there really not one already defined
which is suitable? Eg 'available'? In the Comment, what does ERM
mean? I suggest acronyms should be expanded.
2. Rights qualifier 'accessRights'. This looks useful for other areas
than just DC-GOV. We'd been looking for such an element for
holding 'access' information for some of our resources. We'd
resorted to putting the information in a plain dc:rights elements, but
'access' is a bit different. So I would back this one.
3. Type scheme 'Aggregation-level'.
As chair of the DC-Type working group, I'm unhappy about the
statement: 'DC Gov. WG have contacted the "Type vocabulary
group" for a briefing on types, but have not got an answer yet'. I am
not aware of any formal contact from the DC-Gov group, assuming
it is the DC-Type WG which is referred to (and was unaware of this
scheme proposal). [I'm not really sure what sort of 'briefing' would
be expected from a DCMI Working Group.] So please could I
request that this statement be removed from this profile. It does not
seem a very appropriate statement to make in a published
application profile.
I can see that AggregationLevel would be useful in other areas. So I
wonder if it is wise to have have a definitive vocabulary. This will
mean putting in a formal proposal every time another item needs
adding. I think it would be better to have a slightly more informal
list, and maybe with more generic terms.
I don't really understand what 'volume' means, rather an overloaded
word (and I have no idea what MoReq means).
Someone else has already pointed out that 'Bibliographic item
Collection' sounds nonsense. Does it mean 'Collection of
bibliographic items'? If you used dc:type=Collection from
DCMIType, then a second 'Collection' becomes redundant, and you
could have just dc:type='bibliographic items' according to this
scheme.
AggregationLevel seems to overlap with the DC-Collections WG.
I'm sure that group will find it useful. So maybe some discussion
on terms between DC-Gov and DC-Collections would be useful.
To reply to some comments made yesterday:
The DC-Type group has been concerned only with the high-level
DCMI Type Vocabulary. A decision was made at DC2001 that the
task of defining lower-level types should be left to domain-specific
groups, as is the case with this proposal.
There is no intention of dropping 'collection' from the DCMI Type
Vocabulary. I don't think this causes confusion because all DC
elements are optional and repeatable. So you could have:
<meta name="DC.Type" scheme="DCMIType"
content="Collection" />
<meta name="DC.Type" scheme="AggregationLevel"
content="Folder" />
both within one metadata record. This would be following best
practice which is to have one or more instances of Type from the
DCMI Type Vocabulary and optionally one or more from a domain-
specific list.
Also there is no intention by the Type WG to suggest any qualifiers
for DC.Type such as 'collection'. In fact 'Collection' is a value of
dc:type not a refinement of it.
Best wishes,
Ann
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Ann Apps. Senior Analyst - Research & Development, MIMAS,
University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 6039 Fax: +44 (0) 0161 275 6040
Email: [log in to unmask] WWW: http://epub.mimas.ac.uk/ann.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
