DR 10-0043 - OPC: Non-ambiguity of DC identifiers

[Arms, Caroline]

I see from the Busan minutes that this DR was not closed without action but kept open because
"... there was concern that we’d simply be “passing the buck” to the Dublin Core spec, and not solving the issue raised by this DR. One suggestion was for the Dublin Core table entry Descriptions to be replaced with something like “See Dublin Core V1.1”. There was no consensus on a solution to this DR in time to get into COR2. Other Dublin Core issues that are not part of the DR were raised during discussions. In the end, we decided to leave this DR open."

This is one area where I may be a relative expert within WG4 and I would be happy to see if I can contribute anything.  Unfortunately I am not able to attend face-to-face meetings.  If anyone cares to continue the discussion on Dublin Core (including the other issues that came up at Busan) by e-mail or on a phone call, please let me know.  

The original DR was related to the vagueness of the DC definition, which suggests uniqueness within a "given context."   DC 1.1 definitions are deliberately very unspecific so that the element set can be applied in lots of contexts.  Murata-san's pointer to EPUB is an example of a more specific context (published documents) that warrants a more specific definition/recommendation, mentioning the most relevant identfier schemes.

       Caroline

Caroline Arms
Library of Congress Contractor
Co-compiler of Sustainability of Digital Formats resource
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/

** Views expressed are personal and not necessarily those of the institution **
________________________________________
From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp]
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 9:34 AM
To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: Re: DR 10-0043 - OPC: Non-ambiguity of DC identifiers

The phrase "an unambiguous reference to the resource within a given
context." appears to be quoted from "Dublin Core Metadata Element Set,
Version 1.1", which is available at http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.

I don't think that we should try to improve this borrowed phrase
especially because we do not really care.  I thus think "close without
action" is sensible.

In the case of EPUB, people do want to ensure uniqueness.  They
discussed a lot, and the result can be seen in the EPUB3 package
specification.  I have to confess that I still don't understand very
well.

http://idpf.org/epub/30/spec/epub30-publications.html

Cheers,
Makoto