state of the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative: April 1999, The

Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, Jun/Jul 1999 by Weibel, Stuart

Editor's note:This article contains extracts from a much longer one published in D-Lib Magazine in April 1999 .To preserve as much discussion as possible, given the Bulletin's space constraints, I have included only a few items from the many references to electronic resources related to the Dublin Core in D-Lib. Interested readers should refer to the D-Lib parent article for fuller information. I wish to thank Stuart Weibel and D-Lib Magazine for permission to publish this version.

One hundred and one experts in resource description convened in Washington, D.C., November 2 through November 4, 1998, for the sixth Dublin Core Metadata Workshop (DC-6). The registrants represented 16 countries on 4 continents and many disciplines. As with previous workshops, many new issues were opened, and vigorous debate was a hallmark of the event.

Unlike previous workshops, the focus of DC-6 was not to resolve questions in plenary meetings, but rather to identify unresolved issues and assign them to formal working groups for resolution. The result of this process was an ambitious work plan for 1999. This report summarizes that work plan, highlights the progress that has been made on it and identifies a few significant projects that exemplify this progress.

The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative in 1998

Prior to DC-6, the Dublin Core could be characterized as 15 unstructured elements with textstring values. (See sidebar.) The only widely deployed syntax option for encoding these elements was the tag dot syntax that has been in use since 1996. Implementations in many countries and languages and in many disciplines testify to the widely perceived need for such a metadata element set, and the Dublin Core is the leading candidate for achieving the goal of simple resource description for Internet resources.

The basic definitions of the 15 elements of Dublin Core 1.0 have been stable since December 1996, reflecting confidence in the consensus that has been developed about core description elements over the previous four years. However, few applications have found that the 15 elements satisfy all their needs. This is unsurprising: the Dublin Core is intended to be just as its name implies - a core element set augmented, on the one hand, for local purposes by extension with added elements of local importance, and, on the other hand, by refinement through the use of qualifiers. There are many possible approaches to qualifying or refining the elements to meet such needs. Standardization of the semantics and methods for qualification of the basic elements is necessary if such qualification is to be widely interoperable.

DC-6 and the 1999 Work Plan

Several important issues emerged from the DC-6 Workshop. These issues reflect a cross-section of concerns, from process to pragmatics, syntax to theory. Each has a place in the agenda of the community. The following is a summary of the major areas that emerged from discussions just before and during DC-6.

* Formalization of a process for the Dublin Core. How will the evolution of the Dublin Core be managed so as to reflect the broad interests of diverse stakeholders?

* Standardization. What documents will be standardized and by whom?

* HTML encoding. A formal specification is necessary to replace the informal convention that has guided the community to date.

* Qualification Mechanisms. Can an underlying data model provide for consistent mechanisms for refining Dublin Core elements? How are qualifiers used? Are there DC-recommended qualifiers?

* RDF role. What is the role of the Resource Description Framework (RDF) in Dublin Core metadata? Relationships to other metadata models. How can differences among metadata models be minimized to promote interoperability?

A Maintenance Agency for the Dublin Core Initiative

The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative began informally as an interdisciplinary workshop on resource description. As it attracted broader international and interdisciplinary interest, it has been necessary to develop greater formality around the process. Providing explicit process and structure for decision making is critical for sustaining community confidence. Steps toward this goal were initiated in 1998 with the formation of the Dublin Core Directorate, a Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), and a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).

The Directorate is hosted by the OCLC Office of Research and maintains the Dublin Core Home Page http://purl.org/dc.

- the repository of official documents and other information about the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. The Directorate also administers the activities of Dublin Core working groups and plans DC Workshops.

The Policy Advisory Committee comprises representatives of major stakeholder communities and serves a liaison role between these communities and the Dublin Core Directorate. The Technical Advisory Committee is made up largely of working group chairs and provides a forum for the discussion and ratification of proposals concerning the Dublin Core. A subcommittee of the two groups has taken on the task of preparing a document to codify the process and provide for stable transition of membership on the advisory committees.