Task Force on the Review of ANSI/NISO Draft Standard Z39.85, The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set

CC:DA/TF/Z39.85 Review/3

August 1, 2000

Final Report

Please note that the purpose of this document is to facilitate the work of the Committee and to provide a means for outreach to both library and non-library cataloging communities. This document is intended for the exclusive use of CC:DA and its cataloging constituencies, and is presented for discussion in the ongoing process of rule revision. Under no circumstances should the information here be copied or re-transmitted without prior consultation with the current Chair of CC:DA.

Introduction

The Task Force on the Review of ANSI/NISO Draft Standard Z39.85, The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set reviewed the ANSI/NISO document Z39.85-200x and evaluated it to determine whether the standard as written will be effective for the purpose for which it is designed: to provide a simple and universally applicable standard for cross-domain information resource description. The Task Force asked the question: “Can the standard as written be applied to create simple resource descriptions that are sufficient to facilitate organized resource discovery?”

The Task Force recognizes that a great deal of international and interdisciplinary consensus building has gone into the development of this set of core elements. We also recognize that an effective infrastructure is in place, under the auspices of the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI), to allow for the continuing development and refinement of the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (DCMES).

The Task Force recognizes the value of publishing the standard as an American National Standard for promoting its use among a wide range of international resource description communities.

An important consideration in the Task Force's review of the document was the extent to which the standard has already been successfully applied by many resource description communities. The Task Force believes that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the DCMES as it is currently constituted works as a resource description standard. As librarians, we have much to say about the ways in which the 15 elements in the DCMES can and/or should be qualified and extended. We also have much to say about the semantics and sources of the data values that are attached to Dublin Core metadata elements. For the most part, we have left these comments out of our report, and have confined our comments and recommendations here to the presentation and wording of the draft standard and the appendixes published with it.

Comments

The Task Force recommends that the ALA Voting Member of NISO vote to approve the draft standard. We offer the following recommendations for changes in the language and presentation of the draft standard, and believe that these changes would improve the clarity and ease of use of the document.

1. Scope and Purpose

   The Task Force endorses the language and presentation of this section of the draft standard.

2. Referenced Standards

   The Task Force believes that a short sentence explaining in what way the standards listed here are “referenced” in the draft standard would be helpful. We note, for example, that [RFC2731] Encoding Dublin Core Metadata in HTML. Internet RFC 2413 is included in this list, but no reference to it appears anywhere in the draft standard.

   We also note that the standard makes reference to “a profile of ISO 8601” contained in [W3CDTF], and we suggest that [ISO 8601] be added to the list of referenced standards.

3. Definitions

   The Task Force endorses the language and presentation of this section of the draft standard.

4. The Element Set

   The Task Force recommends that the two paragraphs in “Appendix A: Further Reading” (currently not part of the standard itself) be moved to this section of the standard. Our rationale for recommending this change is that, since the elements in the DCMES are so broadly defined and non-specific, implementers of the standard might better understand the utility of the DCMES, and might be better equipped to make use of the standard, if the standard itself made reference to the site where information about recommended qualifiers and encoding schemes, examples of Dublin Core implementations, translations of the DCMES into foreign languages, user's guides, etc. are available.

   The Task Force also recommends that the paragraph describing the DCMI’s role as maintenance agency for the DCMES in “Appendix B: Maintenance Agency” (not currently part of the standard) be moved to this section of the standard. Our rationale for recommending this change is that, since details about applications and extensions of the standard are such an important factor in the effective use of the DCMES, a statement within the standard itself that there is an agency overseeing and approving recommendations for applications and extensions of the standard would be desirable.

   We note that there is precedent for including these kinds of details in the body of an ANSI/NISO draft standard (as opposed to an appendix), and point to the draft standard Z39.84 as an example.

5. The Elements

   The Task Force recommends the following changes to the presentation and language of these elements in this section of the draft standard:

   Element Name: Identifier The Task Force recommends that the definition of “Identifier” be changed from “An unambiguous reference to a resource within a given context” to “A string or number used to uniquely identify the resource.”

   Element Name: Subject The Task Force recommends that the “Comment:” paragraph be changed to read:

   “Typically, a Subject will be expressed as keywords, key phrases or classification codes that describe a topic of the resource. Recommended best practice is to select a value from a controlled vocabulary or formal classification scheme (for example, Universal Decimal Classification [UDC]).”

   Note: Revising this “Comment:” paragraph in this way would necessitate adding the following reference to Section 2: Referenced Standards:

   [UDC] Universal Decimal Classification
   http://www.udcc.org/

Michael A. Chopey, Chair
Laurel Jizba
Sherry Kelley
Gabriele I. Kupitz
Noelle Van Pulis
Mary S. Woodley