[OAI-implementers] Reconsidering mandatory DC in OAI-PMH
Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:49:44 -0400 (EDT)
Below are some experiments I did last October with 92 repositories.
In total, 21 different metadata formats are used in 92 repositories.
The majority of them (53) use unqualified DC only, 28 repositories use
two metadata formats, four repositories use three metadata formats, and
seven use four metadata formats. The OLAC, RFC1807, OAI_ETDMS and OAI_MARC
are used more than once. The other 16 kinds of metadata format are local
formats; it is very difficult to implement service over these
metadata without individually studying each format.
I think it's pre-mature to dismiss OAI-DC before we establish a way to
encourage metadata interoperability, such as the service proposed by Jose
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Young,Jeff wrote:
> I think people are being too hasty in their dismissal of DC.
> Jose Borbinha writes:
> > I full agree with this direction!
> > We, at the National Library of Portugal (BN), are an example of that
> > case! We have been using OAI-PMH for several purposes, and
> > we'd like to
> > expand that usage, as for example for the transport of
> > UNIMARC Authority
> > records (which have no straight mapping to the DCMES).
> I would argue that we can maintain the DC "requirement" even for formats
> that don't have a straight mapping to Dublin Core by having it describe the
> primary metadata record rather than the resource itself.
> Here is an example of a subject thesaurus where the primary metadata formats
> (MARCXML and Z39.19) don't map directly to Dublin Core. Note that the DC
> record describes the Z39.19 record rather than the term itself.
> Z39.19 record:
> oai_dc record:
> Here is an example from the OpenURL registry which contains XML Schemas
> (among other things) which also don't map directly to Dublin Core. Here, the
> DC record describes the XSD record.
> XSD record:
> oai_dc record:
> OAI-implementers mailing list
> List information, archives, preferences and to unsubscribe: