One document matched: draft-kunze-rfc2413bis-05.txt
Differences from draft-kunze-rfc2413bis-04.txt
Internet-Draft: draft-kunze-rfc2413bis-05.txt J. Kunze
Dublin Core Metadata University of California
Expires 18 June 2007 Office of the President
18 December 2006
The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kunze-rfc2413bis-05.txt)
Status of this Document
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.''
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Distribution of this document is unlimited. Please send comments to
jak@ucop.edu.
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
The Dublin Core Metadata Workshop Series began in 1995 with an
invitational workshop which brought together librarians, digital
library researchers, content experts, and text-markup experts to
promote better discovery standards for electronic resources. The
resulting metadata element set is perhaps the most widely adopted
convention for structuring resource descriptions designed to bridge
networked information systems and content providers in the
publishing, library, museum, scholarly, archival, and government
communities. It defines fifteen metadata elements for resource
description in a cross-disciplinary information environment.
J. Kunze [Page 1]
Internet Draft Dublin Core Metadata December 2006
1. Introduction
The Dublin Core Metadata Workshop Series began in 1995 with an
invitational workshop which brought together librarians, digital
library researchers, content experts, and text-markup experts to
promote better discovery standards for electronic resources. The
resulting metadata element set is perhaps the most widely adopted
convention for structuring resource descriptions designed to bridge
networked information systems and content providers in the
publishing, library, museum, scholarly, archival, and government
communities. It defines fifteen metadata elements for resource
description in a cross-disciplinary information environment.
This document, containing the text of ANSI/NISO Z39.85 [Z39.85] plus
corrections for consistency and clarity, obsoletes Internet RFC 2413,
which was the first published version of the Dublin Core. The
differences are that the present RFC recommends lowercase element
names (consistent with RDF property types) and remains silent about
the unrestrictedness of element ordering and repeatability
(application profiles being the proper place to discuss such topics).
Sections 2-5 and 10-12 are taken directly from ANSI/NISO Z39.85.
2. Foreword
The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) began in 1995 with an
invitational workshop in Dublin, Ohio that brought together
librarians, digital library researchers, content providers, and text-
markup experts to improve discovery standards for information
resources. The original Dublin Core emerged as a small set of
descriptors that quickly drew global interest from a wide variety of
information providers in the arts, sciences, education, business, and
government sectors.
Since the original workshop there has been steadily growing interest
in resource descriptions that are easy to create and that almost
anyone can understand. The potential to increase visibility of
resources in a collection across sectors and subject domains, and to
do so at low cost, is broadly appealing. Services needing
semantically rich descriptions would continue to provide them, but
would attract cross-disciplinary discovery by also providing
universally understandable descriptions common across disciplines.
The digital tourist metaphor is apt. Internet travelers seeking
information in foreign disciplines can use the Dublin Core's
constrained vocabulary to obtain basic guidance in a language that
they understand. Full accessibility to the culture and its services
still requires mastery of the local vocabulary and environment, but a
set of simple facts inscribed in Dublin Core can bring to the
tourist's attention a foreign information portal that might otherwise
have escaped notice.
The interest in cross-domain discovery fueled growing participation
J. Kunze 2. Foreword [Page 2]
Internet Draft Dublin Core Metadata December 2006
in a series of subsequent DCMI workshops. The Dublin Core metadata
element set described here is a set of 15 descriptors that resulted
from this effort in interdisciplinary and international consensus
building. As of June 2000 the Dublin Core exists in over 20
translations, has been adopted by CEN/ISSS (European Committee for
Standardization / Information Society Standardization System), and is
documented in two internet RFCs (Requests for Comments). It also has
official standing within the WWW Consortium and the Z39.50 standard.
Dublin Core metadata is endorsed formally by governments in three
countries for promoting discovery of government information in
electronic form, and Dublin Core is under consideration as a national
information standard in at least five others.
The Dublin Core is not intended to displace any other metadata
standard. Rather it is intended to co-exist -- often in the same
resource description -- with metadata standards that offer other
semantics. It is fully expected that descriptive records will
contain a mix of elements drawn from various metadata standards, both
simple and complex. Examples of this kind of mixing and of HTML
encoding of Dublin Core in general are given in RFC 2731 [RFC2731].
The simplicity of Dublin Core can be both a strength and a weakness.
Simplicity lowers the cost of creating metadata and promotes
interoperability. On the other hand, simplicity does not accommodate
the semantic and functional richness supported by complex metadata
schemes. In effect, the Dublin Core element set trades richness for
wide visibility. The design of Dublin Core mitigates this loss by
encouraging the use of richer metadata schemes in combination with
Dublin Core. Richer schemes can also be mapped to Dublin Core for
export or for cross-system searching. Conversely, simple Dublin Core
records can be used as a starting point for the creation of more
complex descriptions.
3. Scope and Purpose
The Dublin Core metadata element set is a standard for cross-domain
information resource description. Here an information resource is
defined to be anything that has identity; this is the definition used
in Internet RFC 2396, "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic
Syntax", by Tim Berners-Lee et al [RFC2396]. For Dublin Core
applications a resource will typically be an electronic document.
This standard is for the element set only, which is generally used in
the context of a specific project or application. Local or community
based requirements and policies may impose additional restrictions,
rules, and interpretations. It is not the purpose of this standard
to define the detailed criteria by which the element set will be used
with specific projects and applications.
J. Kunze 3. Scope and Purpose [Page 3]
Internet Draft Dublin Core Metadata December 2006
4. Definitions
DCMI -- Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, the maintenance agency for
the Dublin Core.
Information resource -- anything that has identity (the same
definition as in Internet RFC 2396).
Lifecycle of an information resource -- a sequence of events that
mark the development and use of an information resource. Some
examples of events in a lifecycle are: Conception of an invention,
Creation of a draft, Revision of an article, Publication of a book,
Acquisition by a library, Transcription to magnetic disk, Migration
to optical storage, Translation into English, and Derivation of a new
work (e.g., a movie).
5. The Element Set
In the element descriptions below, each element has a descriptive
label intended to convey a common semantic understanding of the
element, as well as a unique, machine-understandable, single-word
name intended to make the syntactic specification of elements simpler
for encoding schemes.
Although some environments, such as HTML, are not case-sensitive, it
is recommended best practice always to adhere to the case conventions
in the element names given below to avoid conflicts in the event that
the metadata is subsequently extracted or converted to a case-
sensitive environment, such as XML (Extensible Markup Language) [XML]
or RDF (Resource Description Framework) [RDF].
To promote global interoperability, a number of the element
descriptions suggest a controlled vocabulary for the respective
element values. It is assumed that other controlled vocabularies
will be developed for interoperability within certain local domains.
6. The Elements
Element Name: title
Label: Title
Definition: A name given to the resource.
Comment: Typically, Title will be a name by which the resource is
formally known.
Element Name: creator
Label: Creator
Definition: An entity primarily responsible for making the resource.
Comment: Examples of a Creator include a person, an organization,
or a service. Typically, the name of a Creator should be
J. Kunze 6. The Elements [Page 4]
Internet Draft Dublin Core Metadata December 2006
used to indicate the entity.
Element Name: subject
Label: Subject
Definition: The topic of the resource.
Comment: Typically, the topic will be represented using
keywords, key phrases, or classification codes.
Recommended best practice is to use an encoding
scheme such as a classification or a controlled
vocabulary. To describe the spatial or temporal
topic of the resource, use the Coverage element.
Element Name: description
Label: Description
Definition: An account of the resource.
Comment: Description may include but is not limited to:
an abstract, a table of contents, a graphical
representation, or a free-text account of
the resource.
Element Name: publisher
Label: Publisher
Definition: An entity responsible for making the resource available.
Comment: Examples of a Publisher include a person, an
organization, or a service. Typically, the name of
a Publisher should be used to indicate the entity.
Element Name: contributor
Label: Contributor
Definition: An entity primarily responsible for making
contributions to the resource.
Comment: Examples of a Contributor include a person, an
organization, or a service. Typically, the name of a
Contributor should be used to indicate the entity.
Element Name: date
Label: Date
Definition: A point or period of time associated with an event
in the lifecycle of the resource.
Comment: Date may be used to express temporal information
at any level of granularity. Recommended best
practice is to use an encoding scheme, such as
the W3CDTF profile of ISO 8601 [W3CDTF].
J. Kunze 6. The Elements [Page 5]
Internet Draft Dublin Core Metadata December 2006
Element Name: type
Label: Type
Definition: The genre, functional category, or aggregation level
of the resource.
Comment: Recommended best practice is to use a controlled
vocabulary such as the the DCMI Type Vocabulary [DCT].
To describe the file format, physical medium, or
dimensions of the resource, use the Format element.
Element Name: format
Label: Format
Definition: The file format, physical medium, or dimensions
of the resource.
Comment: Examples of dimensions include size and duration.
Recommended best practice is to use a controlled
vocabulary such as the list of Internet Media Types
[MIME].
Element Name: identifier
Label: Identifier
Definition: An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given
context.
Comment: Recommended best practice is to identify the
resource by means of a string conforming
to a formal identification system.
Element Name: source
Label: Source
Definition: A related resource from which the described resource
is derived.
Comment: The described resource may be derived from the
related resource in whole or in part. Recommended
best practice is to identify the related resource
by means of a string conforming to a formal
identification system.
Element Name: language
Label: Language
Definition: A language of the resource.
Comment: Recommended best practice is to use an encoding scheme,
such as RFC 3066 [RFC3066] or ISO 639-2 [ISO639].
Element Name: relation
Label: Relation
Definition: A related resource.
J. Kunze 6. The Elements [Page 6]
Internet Draft Dublin Core Metadata December 2006
Comment: Recommended best practice is to identify the
related resource by means of a string conforming
to a formal identification system.
Element Name: coverage
Label: Coverage
Definition: The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, or
the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant.
Comment: Spatial topic may be a named place or a location
specified by its geographic coordinates. Temporal
period may be a named period, date, or date range.
A jurisdiction may be a named administrative entity.
Recommended best practice is to use a controlled
vocabulary such as the Thesaurus of Geographic Names
[TGN]. Where appropriate, named places or time periods
can be used in preference to numeric identifiers such
as sets of coordinates or date ranges.
Element Name: rights
Label: Rights
Definition: Information about rights held in and over the resource.
Comment: Typically, rights information includes a statement about
various property rights associated with the resource,
including intellectual property rights.
7. Security Considerations
The Dublin Core element set poses no risk to computers and networks.
It poses minimal risk to searchers who obtain incorrect or private
information due to careless mapping from rich data descriptions to
the simple Dublin Core scheme. No other security concerns are
likely.
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
9. Author's Address
John A. Kunze
California Digital Library
University of California, Office of the President
415 20th St, 4th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612-3550, USA
Fax: +1 510-893-5212
EMail: jak@ucop.edu
J. Kunze 9. Author's Address [Page 7]
Internet Draft Dublin Core Metadata December 2006
10. References
[DCT] DCMI Type Vocabulary. DCMI Recommendation, 11 July 2000.
http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-type-vocabulary/
[ISO3166] ISO 3166 - Codes for the representation of names of
countries. http://www.din.de/
[ISO639] ISO 639-2 - Codes for the representation of names of
languages, Alpha-3 code (ISO 639-2:1998).
http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/langhome.html
[MIME] Internet Media Types.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/
[RDF] Resource Description Framework. http://www.w3.org/RDF/
[RFC3066] Tags for the Identification of Languages, Internet RFC
3066. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3066.txt
[RFC3986] Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax,
Internet RFC 3986. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt
[RFC2413] Dublin Core Metadata for Resource Discovery. Internet RFC
2413. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2413.txt
[RFC2731] Encoding Dublin Core Metadata in HTML. Internet RFC 2731.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2731.txt
[TGN] Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names.
http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabulary/tgn/index.html
[W3CDTF] Date and Time Formats, W3C Note.
http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime
[XML] Extensible Markup Language. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml
[Z39.85] ANSI/NISO Standard Z39.85-2001 - The Dublin Core Metadata
Element Set.
http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Z39-85.pdf
11. Appendix A: Further Reading
(This appendix is not part of the standard. It is included for
information only.)
Further information about the Dublin Core metadata element set is
available at the URL,
http://dublincore.org/
J. Kunze 11. Appendix A: Further Reading [Page 8]
Internet Draft Dublin Core Metadata December 2006
This web site contains information about workshops, reports, working
group papers, projects, and new developments concerning the Dublin
Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI).
12. Appendix B: Maintenance Agency
(This appendix is not part of the standard. It is included for
information only.)
The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) is responsible for the
development, standardization and promotion of the Dublin Core
metadata element set. Information on DCMI is available at the URL,
http://dublincore.org/
13. Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Expires 18 June 2007
J. Kunze 13. Copyright Notice [Page 9]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 16:18:16 |