DC-Lib community discussion at DC-2009 summary by Stefanie Ruehle
keven lw
DC-Lib discussion sum up at DC-2009 by Stefanie Ruehle：
We had interesting discussions about the DC-Lib AP yesterday. The
revision will be based on Singapore Framework
(http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-framework/) and Criteria
for the Review of Application Profiles
(http://dublincore.org/documents/profile-review-criteria/). Means we
need information about objectives and scope of the profile, about
functional requirements and a domain model before we start to talk
about the terms.
We discussed objectives and scope of the DC-Lib AP: why we need a
Libraries Application Profile, how to use it? And we decided that we
need the DC-Libraries Application Profile as an interchange format for
libraries using DC-based application profiles. It's necessary for the
exchange between these libraries. It's also necessary for sharing data
between these libraries and other users of Dublin Core based APs. But
if this is the goal, we need a simple profile with a flat structure.
We discussed who are the target groups of the DC-Lib AP. There are
libarys that want to change their data with data providers not only
from other libraries but also from different areas (museums, archives,
etc.) - all who have metadata based on Dublin Core.
We discussed the functional requirements of the DC-Lib AP, the usage
scenarios. Do we know enough about these things? Karen and Corey told
about their use cases and we decided that we need to know more about
this. So we will start a survey in the next weeks, asking about usage
of Dublin Core based profiles in libraries.
A really hard discussion started about the usage of FRBR for the
DC-Lib AP domain model. As we already told above, we need a simple
structure to involve all the data that already exist. So we decided
that we will not build a FRBR-based model. This doesn't mean that we
ask libraries to ignore FRBR. It's the other way round. Check if FRBR
is relevant for your application and if it is, then use it. This will
also fit with die DC-Lib AP as an interchange format and in the long
run we will check if it makes sense to have a FRBR-based Libraries AP.
But now we need something more simple and flexible.
Corey made the suggestion to use a model that exists of two entities:
content for the description of work, expression and manifestation and
instance for the items the different libraries have. There were votes
pro and against. We have to discuss this further.