 |
 |
Diane Your comment also applies to the much briefer version I proposed. I don't want the comment to become too discursive, though, and don't we say things about specifying encoding schemes in the Usage Guide and elsewhere? I'm inclined to propose some slight changes to the WG wording eg. instead of: "unambiguous representation of the single date or date range using a widely-recognized syntax...", I think this might be better as: "unambiguous representation of the single date or date range using a syntax encoding scheme, such as the W3CDTF profile of ISO 8601 (which follows the YYYY-MM-DD format)". What do you think? A -----Original Message----- From: A mailing list for the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative's Usage Board [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Diane I. Hillmann Sent: 30 March 2006 16:33 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Seattle agenda to discuss in telecon Andrew: I'm not comfortable about the fact that this wording suggests using a " ... widely-recognized syntax (e.g., ...) without recognizing that these syntaxes are named things and should be specified in the metadata. Diane >Tom et al > >I've been looking at the DCMES changes docs and re-read an email >(http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0507&L=dc-date&T=0&P=4025 ) >from the DC-Date working group proposing a new comment for Date. That >proposed text is different from the text I recently proposed. I'm thinking >that perhaps we need to use this version, since we did ask the Date WG to >draft it. This is what the WG agreed (11-0): > >"Typically, Date will be associated with the creation or availability of >the resource. A date value may be a single date or a date range. Date >values may express temporal information at any level of granularity >(including time). Recommended best practice for encoding the date value >is to supply an unambiguous representation of the single date or date >range using a widely-recognized syntax (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD for a single >date; YYYY-MM-DD/YYYY-MM-DD for a date range; YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM to >specify a single date and time down to the minute)." > >The Madrid meeting notes say that we agreed to adopt this new comment from >the WG so I'm proposing to replace the version that currently exists in the >DCMES changes document with the version above. > >Pete, does this version satisfy your concern about the wording? > >cheers >Andrew > >-----Original Message----- >From: A mailing list for the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative's Usage >Board [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Thomas Baker >Sent: 30 March 2006 14:16 >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Seattle agenda to discuss in telecon > > >All, > >Here is a draft agenda for discussion on today's telecon. >I hope you all (or enough of you) will have Internet access >during the call. The following http:// links are already >working (I am working on the other ones...): > >-- The agenda: > http://stage.dublincore.org/admin/www/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/ > >-- Attn Andrew: > http://stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/dcmes-changes/ > >-- Attn Diane: > http://stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/term-changes/ > http://stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/nsdl-registry/ > stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/wikipedia/ > >-- Attn Andy: > http://stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/all-in-dcterms >/ > http://stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/domains-ranges >/ > >-- Attn Stuart: > http://stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/dcmitype/ > stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/ub-process/ > >-- Attn Tom > stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/profile-pipeli >ne/ > stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/profile-review >/ > stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/rda-review/ > stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/semantic-speci >ficity/ > stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/docn-roadmap/ > stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/backburner/ > >Corrections and additions welcome. Shepherds should please >confirm to me that my summary is accurate and suggest documents >to include (or exclude) from the meeting packet. > >In the call today, I would like to determine whether the >topics are well-clustered and whether the times allotted >are realistic. > >Tom > >------ > >Title: Usage Board meeting - agenda >Identifier: >http://stage.dublincore.org/admin/www/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/ >Created: 2006-03-30 > >Seattle, 29-30 April 2006 >Venue: http://stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/venue/ > >Saturday, 29 April 2006 - 9:00 to 12:00 > >-- Changes to terms in the DCMES namespace (Andrew) > http://stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/dcmes-changes/ > >-- Changes to terms in the DCTERMS namespace (Diane) > http://stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/term-changes/ > >-- Replicating DCMES terms in the DCTERMS namespace (Andy) > http://stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/all-in-dcterms >/ > >Saturday, 29 April 2006 - 13:00 to 17:00 > >-- DCMI property domains and ranges (Andy) - before dcmitype > http://stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/domains-ranges >/ > >-- Finalizing DCMI Type Vocabulary (Stuart) - after domains-ranges > http://stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/dcmitype/ > >Sunday, 30 April 2006 - 9:00 to 12:00 > >-- NSDL Registry (Diane) - before profile-review > http://stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/nsdl-registry/ > >-- Review of Application Profiles: Reference documents (Tom) - after >nsdl-registry > http >://stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/profile-review/ > >-- Review of Application Profiles: the pipeline (Tom) > http >://stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/profile-pipeline/ > >Sunday, 30 April 2006 - 13:00 to 17:00 > >-- Article about Dublin Core in Wikipedia (Diane) > http ://stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/wikipedia/ > >-- Review of Resource Description and Access (RDA, aka AACR3) (Tom, Diane) > http ://stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/rda-review/ > >-- The "semantic specificity" issue (Tom) > http >://stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/semantic-specificity / > >-- DCMI Documentation Roadmap (Tom) > http ://stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/docn-roadmap/ > >-- DCMI Usage Board process (Diane, Stuart) > http ://stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/ub-process/ > >-- Backburner issues > http ://stage.dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2006/04/seattle/backburner/ > http://stage.dublincore.org/usageboard/2006/2006-02.backburner/ > >-- >Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask] >Director, Specifications and Documentation >Dublin Core Metadata Initiative