Recommendations towards “Updating the Qualified Dublin Core registry in DSpace to the latest standards of the DCMI,” a priority identified in the October 2011 community survey on improving metadata support. It also seeks to comply with the proposal to Standardize the Default Namespace. Discussion of this issue thus far is stored as a DCAT Discussion Forum topic, "Updating the Qualified Dublin Core registry in DSpace."

Recommendation (tentative, pending further community input):

• Update current “DCMI Terms” metadata registry to QDC
  
  • provide brief definition and reference (link?) for "DCMI Terms" and "QDC"
  • "DCMI Terms" is the name of the metadata registry that ships with DSpace. It was designed to comply with the draft Library Application Profile for Dublin Core, modeled on the flat, extensible Qualified Dublin Core standard. Soon after, the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) updated its Qualified Dublin Core (QDC) standard. [The default DSpace metadata registry is called dcmi-terms and uses "dc" as its schema. This use of "dcmi-terms" should not be confused with DCMI Metadata Terms. It is neither namespace dc/elements/1.1/ or namespace dc/terms/] 
  • provide reasoning - why is compliance with QDC (ultimately DCTERMS) important/desirable
  • Updating QDC to the latest standard of DCMI and Standardizing the default namespaces were identified as priorities in the October 2011 community survey on improving metadata support authored by DCAT at the request of the DSpace Committers/Developers. These updates were seen as standardizations that "would help compatibility with other systems and benefit from information gathered by the DCMI community" and would address the problem of broken compliance with the standard Dublin Core, which had affected portability to/from a repository.
  • provide a few specific examples of what fields would change from/to, perhaps identify some of what the basic differences would be from current DCMI
  • Updates range from the very basic (change dc.identifier.citation to dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation; dc.description.provenance to dc.provenance; dc.date.copyright to dc.date.copyrighted) to the addition of QDC elements like dc.accrualMethod and dc.audience. If we are continuing to allow qualifiers to be added to QDC elements in the registry, we may also continue to support the current qualified elements that are not specifically compliant with QDC (e.g., dc.contributor.editor). A preliminary mapping can be found here: https://wiki.duraspace.org/download/attachments/32478705/DCAT+QDC+preliminary+%28posted+to+DCAT+8.15.2012%29.xlsx  
• Add DCTERMS as new, parallel metadata registry
  
  • provide brief definition and reference (link?) for "DCTERMS"
  • DCMI has not updated its Qualified Dublin Core standard since 2005. The community standard has shifted towards DCMI Metadata Terms, which, unlike QDC, is not a flat schema based on the schema.element.qualifier format. DCTERMS include range and domain values. A particular term may link to another term that it refines or is refined by (for example: the dcterm "hasPart" refines "relation"; "created" refines "date").
  • provide reasoning - why is compliance DCTERMS important/desirable
  • DCTERMS is the currently maintained DCMI standard. As Sarah Shreeves recently commented:
    

    • "I want to strongly urge the group to look at conforming with DCMI terms (http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/) - even if we can't conform to the vocabulary, etc, this is the most up to date and current form of the namespace. If we use the dc qualifiers document we will be perpetuating the same problem, IMO. I think we can, as Tim suggests, have a graceful path forward. I will admit that a real part of my fear of just moving to DC Qualified is that DSpace--in terms of metadata--will continue to be seen as out of touch with where much of the metadata world is headed."

  • provide a few specific examples of what fields would change from/to, perhaps identify some of what the basic differences would be from current DCMI
  • The ultimate goal, as described below, is to implement full compliance with DCTERMS, which would involve supporting the standard's range and domain values. This goal, however, is not possible with the current DSpace data model. For now, DCTERMS could be provided as a flat registry. Unlike our proposal for the QDC registry, the DCTERMS registry will not be an update of what currently ships with DSpace but a whole new set of elements. Some of these terms, however, are easily mapped between the existing "DCMI Terms" registry. For example, dc.date.created maps to dcterms:created. dc.format maps to dcterms:format. dc.date.updated maps to dcterms:modified. 
  • Some of these mappings remain to be decided and finalized. For example, DCTERMS provides a controlled list of syntax and vocabulary encoding schemes. QDC and "DCMI Terms" have often designated vocabulary and syntax encoding specifications as qualifiers (e.g., dc.subject.mesh, dc.identifier.uri). If we flatted DCTERMS, do we similarly extend with qualifiers (e.g., dcterms:subject.mesh)?  
    
  • A preliminary mapping can be found here: https://wiki.duraspace.org/download/attachments/32478705/DCAT+QDC+preliminary+%28posted+to+DCAT+8.15.2012%29.xlsx
    
• Lockdown registries, offering migratory tools to pull out local customizations and push into new local schema. Make it possible but not easy to delete or edit elements in QDC and DCTERMS registries. Continue to enable the addition of qualifiers in the QDC registry
• Clarify end result - how many metadata registries DSpace will ship with – 3?: 
  
  • 1) QDC - which will be an up date of the current DCMI, and will set as the default metadata schema 
  • 2) DCTERMS - which will be an optional metadata schema, ultimate goal of replacing QDC at some point in the future
  • 3) Local schema - which would ship empty, for the purpose of local customizations
  • Yes, the idea is for DSpace to ship with three metadata registries, to support ultimate migration to DCTERMS, allow for the continuing use of QDC, and standardize namespaces by pushing local customizations not compliant with QDC or DCTERMS into a local registry.
    

Main goal of these recommendations:

• Take steps toward ultimate goal of full compliance with DCTERMS, thus ensuring compliance with current standards endorsed by DC and linked data capabilities. By bringing the existing “DCMI” registry into QDC compliance, we also provide an intermediate migration step, enabling repositories to meet compliance with QDC upon upgrade, which will ease the transition to DCTERMS.
• By locking down registries, ensure compliance with QDC and DCTERMS standards but provide tools to allow customizations not compliant with QDC/DCTERMS to persist in local schema. 

Outstanding issues for committers and community:

• Is it possible to ultimately implement DCTERMS with full functionality? What changes to the data model will be necessary?
• If both QDC and DCTERMS are included, which will be considered the default? Is this projected to change?
• How will this proposal integrate with other suggested changes to DSpace metadata, including Proposal for Metadata Enhancement? How might it affect integration with Fedora? How might it affect other desired changes to metadata in DSpace, including implementing functional structured metadata such as MODS, METS, and PREMIS?
• What challenges will this proposal present—or solve—for harvesting?
• To enable repositories to migrate existing metadata to QDC and DCTERMS registries, we will need to develop robust tools for repositories to deploy. One outstanding issue is the design and development of these tools.  

Relevant JIRA tickets:

(please add any JIRA tickets that could be affected by this proposal!)

It would be useful if we could make a guess at which JIRA issues would be RESOLVED (issue will be specifically addressed by the project) vs. which ones will be AFFECTED (a decision will have to be made that may impact, but not necessarily resolve the issue) vs. which ones are RELATED (issues that relate in some way to metadata schema options in DSpace, but we either aren't sure it will be resolved or it will likely not be resolved) to the DC update project.

DS-125: Date type can't be repeatable in the submission

DS-202: Metadata Generator Plugin

• Not sure whether this is related. But I assume if DCMI requires some properties to be unique (for example identifiers), I guess you would need a generator to ensure unique identifiers get generated.  

DS-433: Update DublinCore Registry to Implement latest DC Standards

DS-716: Add an administrative metadata schema to DSpace

DS-800: Manage visibility of metadata fields as field attribute rather than in dspace.cfg 

DS-805: QDC schema registry needs to be brought into conformity with the current DCMI standards

DS-815: DCDate throws NullPointerException with mangled dates

DS-1134: Multilingual metadata for communities/collections

DS-1420: Exception handling for deleting a metadata field

Areas/processes that will be affected by registry update:

What areas and processes will be affected by these shifts? Is there any documentation of what features in DSpace are making use of certain fields? Where will the code be affected? Where are metadata elements hardcoded?

(pulled from September 4, 2012, DCAT discussion)

• Any processes that create new metadata in DSpace:
  
  • submission forms
  • spreadsheet importer
  • command line import
  • SWORD
  • built-in OAI Harvester

• Any process that displays metadata in the web used interface:
  
  • item pages
  • search, browse, DSpace discovery

• Any process that delivers the metadata (potentially via crosswalks) to other applications:
  • OAI server
  • REST API