Talk:Dublin Core

message: The introduction is comprised of two sentances taken directly from 1.2. What is the Dublin Core?.
The dublincore.org document use rules appears to permit that, provided a copyright notice is included.
Jayvdb 00:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright content in introduction 

message: The audience element is now officially part of the DCMES:
see: http://dublincore.org/documents/2002/10/06/current-elements/index.shtml
 URI:            http://purl.org/dc/terms/audience
    Name:           audience
    Label:          Audience
    Definition:     A class of entity for whom the resource is intended or useful.
    Comment:        A class of entity may be determined by the creator or the 
                    publisher or by a third party.
    Type of term:   http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/principles/#element
    Status:         http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/process/#recommended
    Date issued:    2001-05-21
    This version:   http://dublincore.org/usage/terms/dc/#audience-002
--
[2005-06-22] Removing the following comment: 
"The recommended standard is considered to be poorly organized; notable flaws include a difficulty in finding definitions of the individual metadata elements (the "audience" element is particularly difficult to locate)."
1) Considered by whom? (This is just personal opinion.)
2) Clearly listed now at http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/
--Liberty 23:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "audience" hard to find?

message: "In 2001, it [Dublin Core] became an official ANSI/NISO standard (Z39.85) and in 2003 Dublin Core was issued as an international standard (ISO 15836)."
From Understanding Metadata published by NISO Press, National Information Standards Organization; page 12
There is much in this article about Dublin Core, some of which I attempted to look up on Wikipedia and failed to find information. I am new to using Wikipedia, to understanding Dublin Core and metadata in general, and to the field of information science in general. But there are other ISO numbers linked in Wikipedia. Maybe this one should be too?
I cleaned up the introduction to try to make it understandable for those not in the field.  If you didn't understand this article before, and you can understand it now, feel free to remove the "cleanup request". GUllman 22:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dublin Core - additional fact 

message: Maybe I'm not the only one who's interested in the origin of that term, could someone please provide this information and include it in the article?
:Someone removed it not long ago. I just replaced it. Let's write this article  for an educated person who has never heard of Dublin Core before. For example, imagine a technophobe museum curator who has a Master's degree in Art History, who has just been told by a computer geek that his images will be cataloged using Dublin Core, and he says "Whaaaaaat???". GUllman 23:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the reference to Dublin, Ireland, because it was irrelevant, and I will do so again.  This time I will be careful not to remove the explanation of 'core', which I agree is useful.  RayGates 02:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to know when the meeting in Ohaio took place respectively when DC was established. (Maurice) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.247.49.241 (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Somewhere they say the actual meeting was in Chicago, only OCLR is based in Dublin, Ohio (comp. http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2000/10/25/dublincore/dc8.html) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.247.49.241 (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  From the DC web page on "Past Events" http://dublincore.org/workshops/index.shtml#past:DC-1: OCLC/NCSA Metadata WorkshopMarch 1-3, 1995Dublin, Ohio USACo-sponsored by the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) and OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.LaMona 15:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the term "Dublin Core"? 

message: Does anyone know how many people (site creators, site users) use DC?
I've been designing sites for over a decade and just came across the element for the first time today (in a client's terrible, standards non-compliant, outdated site).
: I too am interested in this, having come across it again for the first time in about a decade. 203.33.3.12 02:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the web to you is HTML pages, then you'll not come across much DC and probably you need not worry much about that. However if you're involved in semantic web activity or the interface between the web and library systems you'll find it in plenty of places. Some examples: DC is pretty much the default for relevant properties in RDF, see the examples given in the W3C's RDF Primer; DC is mandatory in OAI-PMH, a way of sending resource descriptions from one repository to another; and is a commonly used context set for  SRU, a way of sending queries to repositories.--Philbarker 11:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could add a simple example to the article ... 203.129.33.32 (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pervasiveness / usage 

message: Could someone who undertands Dublin Core better than me explain how DCMI Metadata Terms relates to "qualified Dublin Core"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.222.9 (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, both the original 15 terms and the "qualified Dublin Core" are now considered superseded by the terms listed on that page. This means that this article is in dire need of updating. I will put it on my to-do list, but would be happy if someone else got to it first.LaMona (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  DCMI Metadata Terms 

message: "If the web to you is HTML pages, then you'll not come across much DC and probably you need not worry much about that."
The semantic web is not just for library searches.
Currently HTML5 is compatible with a fraction of the semantic markup that was previously usable as valid XHTML.
Yet this finds no mention in this wikipedia article on DC - which is not a reference e-book for library tech.
G. Robert Shiplett 00:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  HTML5 and Dublin Core 

message: Someone added in a reference to "ifla" - possibly meaning IFLA. That isn't relevant, so I reversed the edit. (I still have this on my list of articles that need updating but will take considerable effort.) LaMona (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ifla"? 

message: http://purl.org/dc/terms no longer works. http://purl.org now redirects to https://archive.org/services/purl/, and the transfer of PURL to the Internet Archive needs to be taken into account. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken links 

message: === I got an error message ("Not Found") === 
Recently when I clicked on a certain link from this article  -- (the Latest revision as of 21:06, 18 September 2019 version) -- it took me to a "Not Found" (error message) web page. 
The link I had clicked on was the link in footnote "[8]" which pointed to this: https://www.dublincore.org/news/1995/1995-03-01_the-oclcncsa-metadata-workshop-the-essential-elements-of-network-object-description/ [URL 1a] ... which seems to be (now) a "dead link". 
=== What was there before? (when that link was "alive and well"?) === 
My first attempt to figure out what the [correct] web page used to say, (when that link was "alive and well"), involved using the "Wayback machine" web site (at "web.archive.org"). 
I quickly found [the web page at] this URL: https://web.archive.org/web/2017*/http://www.dublincore.org/news/1995/1995-03-01_the-oclcncsa-metadata-workshop-the-essential-elements-of-network-object-description/ [URL 1b]but it did not seem to contain very much information. 
Ordinarily, I would have just assumed that the information (limited though it might be) at [URL 1b] was probably a reliable indicator -- (in fact, was probably a faithful copy!) -- of the information that used to be accessible using the ["OLD"] link to [URL 1a]. 
I still think that such an assumption is a pretty good bet. However, since there was not very much information at [URL 1b], I did some more checking. 
=== There is a new URL -- (without using the "Wayback machine") -- that works OK === 
It turns out that there is a URL [of a web page] right on the "www.dublincore.org" web site, that seems to correspond to the web page that used to be accessible using the ["OLD"] link to [URL 1a]. 
I found it at https://www.dublincore.org/news/1995/03-01-the-oclcncsa-metadata-workshop-the-essential-elements-of-network-object-description/ [URL 1d] ... although there is also a link to [URL 1d] from https://www.dublincore.org/news/1995/ [URL 1c] ... and [URL 1c] itself seems to include pretty much the same (limited) amount of information as [URL 1d]. 
I decided to write something here on this "Talk:" page, before proceeding with an edit ... partly due to finding out that... apparently, 
=== "| deadurl = yes" is now deprecated === 
While I was getting the URL (and the "display string") for the first hyperlink in this section (shown above), I was looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dublin_Core&type=revision&diff=916483607&oldid=915284859 [Diff URL 2a] which was the DIFF listing for the most recent edit of the article. (It was one easy way to obtain both that URL and that "display string"). 
Lo and behold, the "edit comment" shown there -- at that [Diff URL 2a] web page -- said:(top: Task 16: replaced (1×) / removed (0×) deprecated |dead-url= and |deadurl= with |url-status=;)and ... that -- [the fact that << "| deadurl = yes" >> is now deprecated!] -- was news to me. 
Ordinarily, when I find some "Wayback machine" URL, for a saved "archive" copy of some web page that has been moved [from its old URL to a new one] or that has been deleted, I just enter the new URL as an "archiveurl" field value, and add an "archivedate" and (something like) "| deadurl = yes". (Well, that was in the past; ... in the future, I guess I will be using  (something more like) << "| url-status = dead" >> instead.) 
But now, even though I now know to use "| url-status = dead" instead, I am still a little bit hesitant to update that "" template [instance] for (the "ref" tag for) footnote number "[8]" in the [Dublin Core] article. I am wondering about ... the limited information available at the [presumptive] "target" web page -- whether [URL 1b] or [URL 1d]. 
I understand that the information at the web page at [URL 1b] -- OR [URL 1d] -- is probably just about [exactly!] as helpful to the reader, as the information that used to be at the ["OLD"] web page at [URL 1a]. However, I am unsure about what the original intent was, as far as ... the usefulness of clicking on that link in [what is now] footnote number "[8]". If I had a better understanding of what that original intent had been, then I think I would feel more confident about being able to determine whether or not the web page at [URL 1b] or [URL 1d] would be "up to the task" [sufficiently useful] for accomplishing the intended goal. 
Any advice? or other comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another (apparently) broken link  

message: While I was getting the URL (and the "display string") for the first hyperlink in this section (shown above), I was looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dublin_Core&type=revision&diff=916483607&oldid=915284859 [Diff URL 2a] which was the DIFF listing for the most recent edit of the article. (It was one easy way to obtain both that URL and that "display string"). 
Lo and behold, the "edit comment" shown there -- at that [Diff URL 2a] web page -- said:(top: Task 16: replaced (1×) / removed (0×) deprecated |dead-url= and |deadurl= with |url-status=;)and ... that -- [the fact that << "| deadurl = yes" >> is now deprecated!] -- was news to me. 
Ordinarily, when I find some "Wayback machine" URL, for a saved "archive" copy of some web page that has been moved [from its old URL to a new one] or that has been deleted, I just enter the new URL as an "archiveurl" field value, and add an "archivedate" and (something like) "| deadurl = yes". (Well, that was in the past; ... in the future, I guess I will be using  (something more like) << "| url-status = dead" >> instead.) 
But now, even though I now know to use "| url-status = dead" instead, I am still a little bit hesitant to update that "" template [instance] for (the "ref" tag for) footnote number "[8]" in the [Dublin Core] article. I am wondering about ... the limited information available at the [presumptive] "target" web page -- whether [URL 1b] or [URL 1d]. 
I understand that the information at the web page at [URL 1b] -- OR [URL 1d] -- is probably just about [exactly!] as helpful to the reader, as the information that used to be at the ["OLD"] web page at [URL 1a]. However, I am unsure about what the original intent was, as far as ... the usefulness of clicking on that link in [what is now] footnote number "[8]". If I had a better understanding of what that original intent had been, then I think I would feel more confident about being able to determine whether or not the web page at [URL 1b] or [URL 1d] would be "up to the task" [sufficiently useful] for accomplishing the intended goal. 
Any advice? or other comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "| deadurl = yes" is now deprecated 

message: The first sentence ("The Dublin Core schema is a small set of vocabulary terms ...") is untrue. A schema or scheme is a set of rules. Terms, OTOH, are members of vocabularies. The Dublin Core schema (or scheme) is *not* a vocabulary. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first sentence is untrue 

message: I have no personal objection to the removal of the trade mark symbols in the lede paragraph (see the differences) but the entire paragraph is a quotation so I don't know whether it's OK to remove them. Misha Wolf (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've concluded that it is OK to remove the TMs as the lede para text is not enclosed in quotation marks. Misha Wolf (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trade Mark symbols