Metadata proposal

[Patrick Durusau <Patrick.Durusau@sbl-site.org>]

Greetings,

In an effort to get discussion going on composition of the PSI 
Specification, I propose that we use the unqualified Dublin Core 
metadata elements to satisfy recommendations 1-5 for PSIs.

These elements are currently in use by the OAI (Open Archives 
Initiative) and would provide both human and machine readable metadata 
(Recommendations 1 and 2, and if used for both purposes, would also 
provide consistent metadata, Recommendation 3.)

The <coverage> element should be documented for use in identifying the 
Published Subject Indicator as a PSI, Recommendation 4.

Coverage is defined at:
http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/

As:

> Label: Coverage   

> Definition: The extent or scope of the content of the resource.   

> Comment:  Typically, Coverage will include spatial location (a 
> place name or geographic coordinates), temporal period (a period 
> label, date, or date range) or jurisdiction (such as a named 
> administrative entity). Recommended best practice is to select a 
> value from a controlled vocabulary (for example, the Thesaurus of 
> Geographic Names [TGN]) and to use, where appropriate, named places 
> or time periods in preference to numeric identifiers such as sets of 
> coordinates or date ranges.


The <publisher> element should be documented for use in meeting 
Recommendation 5 (identify its publisher).

The schema can be found at: 
http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd

Any objections to using unqualified Dublin Core metadata as the standard 
metadata for PSIs?

Hope everyone is having a great day!

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
Patrick.Durusau@sbl-site.org
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model

Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!