Notes from Last meeting

["Daniel Bennett" <daniel@citizencontact.com>]

PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE ARE NOT COMPREHENSIVE NOTES. Consider it more like a reminder.

 

The meeting mainly consisted of a discussion of the proposed Dublin Core set. Also we agreed that we would bring in a Dublin Core expert to look over our proposed use.

 

The highlighted portion below indicates what the discussion was about the various tags.

Attendence:

Joe Carmel, Clerk of the House

Louis Drummond, CRS

Ann Washington, CRS

Andy Harvey, Nevada

Don Bergeron, LexisNexis

Chet Ensign, LexisNexis

Cindy Leach, Clerk

Pam Greenberg, NCSL

 

<?xml version="1.0"?>

 

<metadata

  xmlns="http://www.oasis-open.org/legis-metadata"

  xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"

  xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.oasis-open/legis-metadata/metadata.xsd"

  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"

  xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/">

 

 

  <dc:coverage xsi:type="dcterms:TGN">United States</dc:coverage>  <!-- In that the United States documents are located in .gov as opposed to the normal gov.xx convention, and also the states use .st.us . We should discuss this further-->

• There were no major objections. Just a questions as to what the format for the states would be.

 

  <dc:coverage>United States House of Representatives</dc:coverage>

Don-says coverage tags together mean they contradictory, may be there should be an attribute. Joe,- should this be creator?

 

  <dc:identifier>108 H. R. 12 IH<dc:identifier>  <!-- GREAT--> 

Don-Bluebook or what format?

Ann-Bluebook is HR 12

Joe- based on internal

Ann-mentions use of attribute to make more machine readable

Daniel- is it possible to link to naming convention

More discussion

 

  <dc:identifier xsi:type="dcterms:URI">http://www.us-congress.gov/108/HR/12[IH]<dc:identifier>  <!-- It should be assumed that the the document linked to uses a DTD and/or Schema -->

 

  <dc:identitfier xsi:type="dcterms:URL">http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:hr12:</dc:identifier>  <!-- If the system changes for links, will the old links still be usable even if redirected? --> 

 Should it be allowed if permanent.

 

  <dc:title>Jobs and Growth Tax Act of 2003</dc:title>

Joe-possibly more short titles

There is discussion about whether the “Title” is sometimes not the official long title, but is a commonly used title. Also there was a suggestion to add additional title tags to handle this or use the description.

 

  <dc:creator>McKeon, Howard P. (Buck) [CA-25]</dc:creator>

Pam –indicates that some states use committee

Joe- will use cmtes or chamber instead of or addition

Daniel-both or not

Andy-bills pass on from session to session using asterisks

 

  <dc:creator xsi:type="dcterms:URI">http://bioguide.congress.gov/M000508</dc:creator>  Discussion again of whether non-permanent links allowed and realization that creator may indicate very different things for different bodies, for example it might be a person or a committee.

 

  <dc:description>To make changes to the Higher Education Act of 1965 incorporating the results of the FED UP Initiative, and for other purposes.</dc:description>

 

   <dc:description xsi:type="dcterms:tableOfContents">Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.  Sec. 2. Reference; effective date; implementation.  Title I-Technical Amendments  Sec. 101. Technical amendments.  Sec. 102. Clerical amendments.  Sec. 103. Study of teacher preparation.  Title II-Student Loan Forgiveness  Sec. 201. Cancellation of student loan indebtedness for spouses, surviving joint debtors, and parents.  Title III-Opportunities for Higher Education via Telecommunications  Sec. 301. Exception to 50 percent correspondence course limitations. Sec. 302. Evaluation and report<dc:description>

 

  <dc:subject> </dc:subject>  <!--Although there has been discussion about the difficulty as to acertaining if and what subjects the law or proposed legislation can be done, in that legal documents should probably not include metadata that is not either clearly stated within the text of the document or truly self evident. I would recommend using the term "legislation" or "law" or "statute" in the subject field. In this way, we will have included clearly within the meta-data, what the document is. or better yet... see below in added relation tag-->

Not sure. No conclusion reached.

 

 

<dc:relation>USCongress/legislation/108/</dc:relation> <!-- to make clear that this document is part of a set of proposed legislation-->

 

  <dc:date>2003-01-07</dc:date> General agreement.

 

  <dcterms:modified refines="dc:date" xsi:type="dcterms:W3CDTF">2003-01-07</dcterms:modified> General agreement.

 

  <dc:type>text</dc:type> General agreement.

 

  <dc:format xsi:type="dcterms:IMT">text/xml</dc:format> General agreement.

 

  <dc:language xsi:type="dcterns:RFC3066">eng-US</dc:language> General agreement.

 

  <dc:rights>This information is a U.S. Government Publication. Works by the U. S. Government are not eligible for U. S. copyright protection.</dc:rights>  <!--Anytime copyright information is referred to there should be a reference/citation to the jurisdiction and either the treaty(s) and/or law(s) such as U.S. Code Title 17 Section 105 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=+17usc105 -->

General agreement.

 

</metadata>