[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (RFC 2413) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 5013

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]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/