wiki:Metadata

Version 17 (modified by Wolfgang Schmidle, 15 years ago) (diff)

--

Metadata

The "DFG Practical Guidelines on Digitisation" (German, English) discuss some metadata issues.

Dublin Core Metadata Initiative:

The metadata module in our Relax NG compact schema.

Some questions:

  1. The definitions
    dc.language = element dcterms:language { element rdf:Description { element dcq:languageScheme { "ISO 639-2" }, rdf.value } }
    dc.date = element dcterms:date { element rdf:Description { element dcq:dateScheme { "ISO 8601" }, rdf.value } }
    

seem to be obsolete. Especially dcq seems obsolete. I have replaced them by something which I believe is in accordance with Recommendation 7 in the 2003 XML Guidelines:

dc.language = element dcterms:language { attribute xsi:type { "dcterms:ISO639-3" }, text }
dc.date = element dcterms:date { attribute xsi:type { "dcterms:W3CDTF" }, text } 

(Maybe I should have left <rdf:value> instead of "text"? But then, consequently ALL "text" in dcterms definitions should in fact be <rdf:value>.)

However, information is sparse. The syntax encoding schemes dcterms:W3CDTF and dcterms:ISO639-3 do exist according to DCTERMS, but an up-to-date opinion about how to use syntax encoding schemes is difficult to obtain. The proposed recommendation 2008 XML Guidelines uses dcterm:date only like this:

<dcterms:date>2005-05-05</dcterms:date>
<dcterms:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#date">2005-05-05</dcterms:date>

Any suggestions?

  1. Should we rename our <metadata> element? In all examples it is <ref:Description>. However, in most examples it seems to mean the repository version of the metadata, not the version in the xml file itself.
  1. Do we need something like <foaf:Person> for creators, contributors, etc.? (I guess not; it doesn't seem have any particular advantage.)