分享
 
 
 

RFC2413 - Dublin Core Metadata for Resource Discovery

王朝other·作者佚名  2008-05-31
窄屏简体版  字體: |||超大  

Network Working Group S. Weibel

Request for Comments: 2413 OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.

Category: Informational J. Kunze

University of California, San Francisco

C. Lagoze

Cornell University

M. Wolf

Reuters Limited

September 1998

Dublin Core Metadata for Resource Discovery

1. Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does

not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this

memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.

2. 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

Dublin Core is a 15-element set of descriptors that has emerged from

this effort in interdisciplinary and international consensus

building. This is the first of a set of Informational RFCs

describing the Dublin Core. Its purpose is to introdUCe the Dublin

Core and to describe the consensus reached on the semantics of each

of the 15 elements.

3. Introduction

Finding relevant information on the World Wide Web has become

increasingly problematic due to the explosive growth of networked

resources. Current Web indexing evolved rapidly to fill the demand

for resource discovery tools, but that indexing, while useful, is a

poor substitute for richer varieties of resource description.

An invitational workshop held in March of 1995 brought together

librarians, digital library researchers, and text-markup specialists

to address the problem of resource discovery for networked resources.

This activity evolved into a series of related workshops and

ancillary activities that have become known collectively as the

Dublin Core Metadata Workshop Series.

The goals that motivate the Dublin Core effort are:

- Simplicity of creation and maintenance

- Commonly understood semantics

- Conformance to existing and emerging standards

- International scope and applicability

- Extensibility

- Interoperability among collections and indexing systems

These requirements work at cross purposes to some degree, but all are

desirable goals. Much of the effort of the Workshop Series has been

directed at minimizing the tensions among these goals.

One of the primary deliverables of this effort is a set of elements

that are judged by the collective participants of these workshops to

be the core elements for cross-disciplinary resource discovery. The

term "Dublin Core" applies to this core of descriptive elements.

Early experience with Dublin Core deployment has made clear the need

to support qualification of elements for some applications. Thus, a

Dublin Core element may be expressed without qualification (as

described in this RFC) or with qualifiers that refine its semantics

(the subject of future RFCs). For the sake of interoperability,

simple indexing and discovery tools should be able to ignore any

qualifiers provided, while more advanced, semantically richer tools

should be able to use qualifiers to support more specialized or

precise discovery.

The broad agreements about syntax and semantics that have emerged

from the workshop series will be expressed in a series of

Informational RFCs, of which this document is the first.

4. Description of Dublin Core Elements

The following is the reference definition of the Dublin Core Metadata

Element Set. Further information about the Dublin Core Metadata

Element Set is available at [1]:

http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core

In the element descriptions below, each element has a descriptive

name intended to convey a common semantic understanding of the

element, as well as a formal single-Word label 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 labels 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) [2].

Each element is optional and repeatable. Metadata elements may

appear in any order. The ordering of multiple occurrences of the

same element (e.g., Creator) may have a significance intended by the

provider, but ordering is not guaranteed to be preserved in every

system.

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.

The metadata elements fall into three groups which roughly indicate

the class or scope of information stored in them: (1) elements

related mainly to the Content of the resource, (2) elements related

mainly to the resource when viewed as Intellectual Property, and (3)

elements related mainly to the Instantiation of the resource.

Content Intellectual Property Instantiation

----------- --------------------- -------------

Title Creator Date

Subject Publisher Format

Description Contributor Identifier

Type Rights Language

Source

Relation

Coverage

4.1. Title Label: "Title"

The name given to the resource, usually by the Creator or Publisher.

4.2. Author or Creator Label: "Creator"

The person or organization primarily responsible for creating the

intellectual content of the resource. For example, authors in the

case of written documents, artists, photographers, or illustrators in

the case of visual resources.

4.3. Subject and Keywords Label: "Subject"

The topic of the resource. Typically, subject will be expressed as

keywords or phrases that describe the subject or content of the

resource. The use of controlled vocabularies and formal

classification schemes is encouraged.

4.4. Description Label: "Description"

A textual description of the content of the resource, including

abstracts in the case of document-like objects or content

descriptions in the case of visual resources.

4.5. Publisher Label: "Publisher"

The entity responsible for making the resource available in its

present form, such as a publishing house, a university department, or

a corporate entity.

4.6. Other Contributor Label: "Contributor"

A person or organization not specified in a Creator element who has

made significant intellectual contributions to the resource but whose

contribution is secondary to any person or organization specified in

a Creator element (for example, editor, transcriber, and

illustrator).

4.7. Date Label: "Date"

A date associated with the creation or availability of the resource.

Recommended best practice is defined in a profile of ISO 8601 [3]

that includes (among others) dates of the forms YYYY and YYYY-MM-DD.

In this scheme, for example, the date 1994-11-05 corresponds to

November 5, 1994.

4.8. Resource Type Label: "Type"

The category of the resource, such as home page, novel, poem, working

paper, technical report, essay, dictionary. For the sake of

interoperability, Type should be selected from an enumerated list

that is currently under development in the workshop series.

4.9. Format Label: "Format"

The data format and, optionally, dimensions (e.g., size, duration) of

the resource. The format is used to identify the software and

possibly hardware that might be needed to display or operate the

resource. For the sake of interoperability, the format should be

selected from an enumerated list that is currently under development

in the workshop series.

4.10. Resource Identifier Label: "Identifier"

A string or number used to uniquely identify the resource. Examples

for networked resources include URLs and URNs (when implemented).

Other globally-unique identifiers, such as International Standard

Book Numbers (ISBN) or other formal names are also candidates for

this element.

4.11. Source Label: "Source"

Information about a second resource from which the present resource

is derived. While it is generally recommended that elements contain

information about the present resource only, this element may contain

metadata for the second resource when it is considered important for

discovery of the present resource.

4.12. Language Label: "Language"

The language of the intellectual content of the resource.

Recommended best practice is defined in RFC1766 [4].

4.13. Relation Label: "Relation"

An identifier of a second resource and its relationship to the

present resource. This element is used to express linkages among

related resources. For the sake of interoperability, relationships

should be selected from an enumerated list that is currently under

development in the workshop series.

4.14. Coverage Label: "Coverage"

The spatial or temporal characteristics of the intellectual content

of the resource. Spatial coverage refers to a physical region (e.g.,

celestial sector) using place names or coordinates (e.g., longitude

and latitude). Temporal coverage refers to what the resource is

about rather than when it was created or made available (the latter

belonging in the Date element). Temporal coverage is typically

specified using named time periods (e.g., neolithic) or the same

date/time format [3] as recommended for the Date element.

4.15. Rights Management Label: "Rights"

A rights management statement, an identifier that links to a rights

management statement, or an identifier that links to a service

providing information about rights management for the resource.

5. 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

to be raised by the element description consensus documented here.

6. References

[1] Further information about the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set,

http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core

[2] Extensible Markup Language (XML), http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml

[3] Date and Time Formats (based on ISO 8601), W3C Technical Note,

http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime

[4] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of Languages", RFC

1766, March 1995.

7. Authors' Addresses

Stuart L. Weibel

OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.

Office of Research

6565 Frantz Rd.

Dublin, Ohio, 43017, USA

Phone: +1 614-764-6081

Fax: +1 614-764-2344

EMail: weibel@oclc.org

John A. Kunze

Center for Knowledge Management

University of California, San Francisco

530 Parnassus Ave, Box 0840

San Francisco, CA 94143-0840, USA

Phone: +1 510-525-8575

Fax: +1 415-476-4653

EMail: jak@ckm.ucsf.edu

Carl Lagoze

University Library and Department of Computer Science

Cornell University

Ithaca, NY 14853, USA

Phone: +1 607-255-6046

Fax: +1 607-255-4428

EMail: lagoze@cs.cornell.edu

Misha Wolf

Reuters Limited

85 Fleet Street

London EC4P 4AJ, UK

Phone: +44 171-542-6722

Fax: +44 171-542-8314

EMail: misha.wolf@reuters.com

8. Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to

others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it

or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published

and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any

kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are

included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this

document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing

the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other

Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of

developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for

copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be

followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than

English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be

revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an

"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING

TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.

 
 
 
免责声明:本文为网络用户发布,其观点仅代表作者个人观点,与本站无关,本站仅提供信息存储服务。文中陈述内容未经本站证实,其真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。
2023年上半年GDP全球前十五强
 百态   2023-10-24
美众议院议长启动对拜登的弹劾调查
 百态   2023-09-13
上海、济南、武汉等多地出现不明坠落物
 探索   2023-09-06
印度或要将国名改为“巴拉特”
 百态   2023-09-06
男子为女友送行,买票不登机被捕
 百态   2023-08-20
手机地震预警功能怎么开?
 干货   2023-08-06
女子4年卖2套房花700多万做美容:不但没变美脸,面部还出现变形
 百态   2023-08-04
住户一楼被水淹 还冲来8头猪
 百态   2023-07-31
女子体内爬出大量瓜子状活虫
 百态   2023-07-25
地球连续35年收到神秘规律性信号,网友:不要回答!
 探索   2023-07-21
全球镓价格本周大涨27%
 探索   2023-07-09
钱都流向了那些不缺钱的人,苦都留给了能吃苦的人
 探索   2023-07-02
倩女手游刀客魅者强控制(强混乱强眩晕强睡眠)和对应控制抗性的关系
 百态   2020-08-20
美国5月9日最新疫情:美国确诊人数突破131万
 百态   2020-05-09
荷兰政府宣布将集体辞职
 干货   2020-04-30
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案逍遥观:鹏程万里
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案神机营:射石饮羽
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案昆仑山:拔刀相助
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案天工阁:鬼斧神工
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案丝路古道:单枪匹马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:与虎谋皮
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:李代桃僵
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:指鹿为马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:小鸟依人
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:千金买邻
 干货   2019-11-12
 
推荐阅读
 
 
 
>>返回首頁<<
 
靜靜地坐在廢墟上,四周的荒凉一望無際,忽然覺得,淒涼也很美
© 2005- 王朝網路 版權所有