Note: lead editors/authors/volunteers are listed below. In addition to document creation, the DC Architecture group involves a number of metadata implementors. This page will track DC Architecture implementations, which will be used to evaluate the maturity of our specifications.
|DCArchTasklist||DCMI Architecture tasklist, enumerating works in progress and associated timescales||WG chairs||Completed|
|DCSimpleSchema||Dublin Core Metadata Elements (unqualified) in RDF-compliant XML DTD [ proposed recommendation]||Dave Beckett (lead author).||Completed to PR
The document authors consider the work (as of Dec 2000) finished, and a candidate for implementation testing and feedback.
|DCGuideExamples|| The DC Guide contains RDF examples; these should be kept consistent with
current dc-architecture designs.
Raised: Weibel 2001-02-20
|Architecture and Guide chairs||Proposed resolution: userguide-eg1.rdf
from Dan Brickley (see also RDFViz.org GIF
|ArchRoadmap||DCMI Architecture / roadmap document||Note: this draft deliverable has removed from tasklist. The 'roadmap' for DC Architecture should be evident from this page and from published specifications and guides.|
|DCRDFModel||Guidelines on RDF Model representation of Qualified Dublin Core (revision of existing doc) [ working draft].||Roland Schwaenzl, Dave Beckett, Dan Brickley||In Progress
See DCRDFQual redraft works in progress, a draft for review to the WG planned for end March 2001. This deliverable will need to address the topic of "structured values".
Works in Progress:
|DCQualSchema||An RDF-compliant XML DTD/Schema for Qualified Dublin Core||(volunteered: Dan Brickley, Dave Beckett)||In progress; dependent on RDF-Model for DC in RDF/XML|
|DCQualHTMLMETA||Dublin Core Qualifiers (HTML encoded META) [working draft]||Simon Cox; Andy Powell; Eric Miller||Completed|
|DCQualNatLang||Discussion document: a natural language expression for qualified Dublin Core metadata sentences.||Tom Baker||Completed (Published as D-Lib Magazine article|
|DCMI Namespace Policy||A namespace policy statement [working draft]||Stu Weibel||In Progress|
A list of as yet unresolved issues, or those ideas or problems that are still under discussion.
Working Group mailing list: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/dc-architecture.html
Information on discussions and decisions that were used to support the creation of this working group.
This working group addresses two requirements commonly articulated by metadata implementors in the Dublin Core community. Firstly, there is a need for simple, short and practical specifications describing Dublin Core deployment strategies using HTML, XML and RDF. Secondly, there is a need for architectural consistency across these complementary specifications, and some broad 'overview' or roadmap materials providing a readily comprehended view of how these various activities fit together.
The Architecture WG is in particular expected to address the need for an RDF-compatible approach to DC deployment that interacts well with mainstream Web technologies such as HTML and XML.
Regarding HTML, the WG should build upon the qualified DC using HTML meta draft, the additional possibilities provided by the recent W3C XHTML 1.0 Recommendation, and the transformational capabilities of Extenstible Stylesheet Language (XSL). The use of XSLT for transforming between XML-based data formats provides a number of strategies that the DCMI Architecture WG will need to explore. XSLT can, for example, be used to transform various XML dialects (eg. XHTML, or data written to proprietary DTDs) into formats more suited to interchange or aggregation (further reading: danc-0101, danc-0026).
The goal of the WG is to provide enabling technology to support the deployment of rich metadata modeling and description based on existing specifications from DCMI, W3C and elsewhere. WG members will therefore need some understanding both of various relevant technologies (XML,RDF,HTML,XHTML,XSLT...) and of the kinds metadata applications Dublin Core and RDF are being applied to.
It is not a goal of this WG to undertake any actual data modelling work, ie. we do not aim to redescribe the entities and relationships described in Dublin Core (and related) metadata structures. Rather, we are attempting to articulate deployment strategies that allow such data modeling activites to be conducted in a more decentralised fashion. The recent simplification of the DCMI's approach to qualifiers is indicative of a broader shift towards a model in which the DCMI Usage Committee plays the role of endorser rather than creator with respect to new metadata vocabulary elements. The central challenge addressed by the Architecture WG is to specify practically implementable mechanisms by which (qualified) Dublin Core data structures can be deployed, and presented as candidates for endorsement by the Usage Committee. These mechanisms will need to embrace not just the exemplary DC qualifiers recently ratified, but other such qualifiers specified according to the principles adopted by the DCMI Usage Committee.
Information on when this working group was constituted, dates of group meetings and results from those meetings, etc.
Links to groups, reports, software, projects, etc. that would be of interest to the participants of this working group.
The RDF Interest Group provides an active forum for discussion amongst RDF/XML metadata implementors.
The open metadata registry testbed contains links to draft rdf schema for many Dublin Core qualifier constructs.
Information, standards and reports that were used to support the decisions and discussions in this working group.