[metadataLibrarians] pseudo-qualifiers in simple DC
dih1 at cornell.edu
Mon Aug 30 12:25:30 PDT 2004
The Dublin Core Usage Board (of which I am a member) considered just this
question about a year ago, in the context of "Using Dublin Core"--the DC
official users guide. The consensus was that this embedding of qualifiers
in simple DC was not a good idea, and that metadata providers who needed
the extra richness of qualified DC should be encouraged to use qualified
DC, rather than try to embed refinements in simple DC.
In general it's been my contention for some time that far too many metadata
providers seem to be exposing only simple DC, when they really should be
looking to qualified DC to better meet their needs. Otherwise, as you point
out, bilateral agreements between provider and harvester are taking the
place of standard data, to the detriment of all.
You ask, "Have you given up on trying to shove all sorts of things in
simple DC just for OAI and rely solely on exposing more robust metadata
formats?" As a metadata aggregator who has dealt with far too many
squirrelly metadata practices (see:
http://dc2003.ischool.washington.edu/Archive-03/03dushay.pdf), I entreat
you, please, give up trying to shove things into simple DC! Remember, it
is by your metadata you will be known! As a good OAI provider, you'll also
expose a simple DC version as well, thus giving downstream users the
ability to make their own decisions.
By the way, the DC Usage Board has been working on a method for allowing
roles to be used with Contributor, so don't lose hope on that being
Diane I. Hillmann
National Science Digital Library
Cornell Information Science
(and editor, "Using Dublin Core")
At 01:22 PM 8/28/2004 -0500, Riley, Jenn wrote:
>I'm looking for opinions on the use of "pseudo-qualifiers" in simple DC
>values exposed via OAI. By "pseudo-qualifiers" I mean the inclusion of
>strings indicating element refinements or encoding schems (the same
>sorts of things the real qualifiers in qualified DC do) within the
>actual simple DC element content string. The purpose of doing this
>could be two-fold: 1) making the simple DC metadata more intelligible
>for end-users seeing metadata records, and 2) allowing service providers
>to use this information intelligently to increase the quality of service
>they can provide.
>We have relationships with some service providers, so in those cases
>we'd know if they'd be able to use metadata formats more robust than DC
>if we exposed them, and how they'd want simple DC elements structured to
>use these "pseudo-qualifiers." But I'm concerned that tailoring our
>simple DC for a few service providers would reduce the utility of the
>records for the larger OAI community. Basically I have three questions:
>1) What's the general opinion of service providers out there on
>including pseudo-qualifiers in DC elements?
>2) If these pseudo-qualifiers are used, is it best to put them at the
>beginning or end of the element content?
>3) If these pseudo-qualifiers are used, what characters are best to use
>to delimit the pseudo-qualifier from the rest of the element content?
>I imagine the answers to these questions would differ among DC elements.
>It seems pretty straightforward that:
>would be OK. Including the IsPartOf pseudo-qualifier wouldn't affect the
>end-user experience, and the URL is recognizable easily for service
>provider processing. However, qualifying a subject or contributor might
>be more problematic:
><dc:subject>[TGM I] Bodies of water</dc:subject> <dc:contributor>Berlin,
>If a service provider were to not do any post-processing of these string
>to remove and/or intelligently use these pseudo-qualifiers, they could
>interfere with effective combination of metadata from multiple sources.
>If the qualifier is at the beginning, a subject or name alphabetical
>browse would be ineffective. If the qualifier is at the either end,
>collocation of all resources with the same subject or contributor would
>be affected. But the utility of the record, especially for the
>pseudo-qualified contributor, is greatly increased for the end-user if
>this pseudo-qualifier is included.
>I'm posting this query elsewhere to try to determine what service
>providers' opinions are on this issue, but I'm also very interested in
>what metadata librarians' views are. Have you given up on trying to
>shove all sorts of things in simple DC just for OAI and rely solely on
>exposing more robust metadata formats? Have you instead found good ways
>of including extra data in simple DC for end-user benefit? Something
>Digital Library Program
>Indiana University - Bloomington
>Main Library E170
>Metadatalibrarians-monarchos.com mailing list
>Metadatalibrarians-monarchos.com at lists.monarchos.com
More information about the Metadatalibrarians-monarchos.com