From sb at LDC.UPENN.EDU Mon Oct 13 20:21:35 2003 From: sb at LDC.UPENN.EDU (Steven Bird) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 06:21:35 +1000 Subject: OLAC Metadata Standard: Call for review Message-ID: Hi folks, We haven't heard any feedback on the metadata document. Please send any comments this week (i.e. by Friday 17 October). If you think it is ok as it is, please let us know, thanks. http://www.language-archives.org/OLAC/metadata.html Steven (& Gary) ---- Dear implementers of the OLAC Metadata standard, At our last workshop in December 2002 we established version 1.0 of the OLAC Metadata set. This document defines the format used by the OLAC repositories for the interchange of metadata within the framework of the Open Archives Initiative (OAI). The metadata set is based on Qualified Dublin Core, but the format allows for the use of extensions to express community-specific qualifiers ("OLAC extensions"). At present there are five OLAC extensions in use, for Discourse Types, Language Identification, Linguistic Field, Linguistic Data Types, and Participant Roles. Four of these are now documented as draft OLAC Recommendations, thanks to Heidi Johnson, Helen Aristar Dry and Michael Appleby [http://www.language-archives.org/REC/olac-extensions.html] OLAC Metadata is currently in Candidate status, and we feel it is now time to do the final processing to promote it to Adopted status. According to the OLAC Process, we are now issuing a call for review ``in which the community members who have actually put the document to use are invited to describe their experience and comment on whether it is ready to advance to adoption, potentially with changes they might recommend.'' Would you please read the OLAC Metadata document once more and direct feedback to this list or directly to us? Is it ready for adoption as an OLAC Standard, i.e. as a set of specifications that archives must follow when implementing an OLAC-compliant repository? Please respond by Friday 10 October at the latest. After this deadline, the OLAC Council will review your feedback and determine any final wording changes. If there is a consensus that the document is ready, the Council will approve it for adoption as an OLAC Standard. The document can be found at: http://www.language-archives.org/OLAC/metadata.html Thanks, Steven & Gary From nickt at PARADISEC.ORG.AU Tue Oct 14 00:04:04 2003 From: nickt at PARADISEC.ORG.AU (Nicholas Thieberger) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:04:04 +1000 Subject: OLAC Metadata Standard: Call for review In-Reply-To: <1066076498.1965.118.camel@aviary> Message-ID: Having gone through a long process of implementation of the OLAC metadata set I appreciate the work that has gone into developing it. I also appreciate that it is possible to include additional metadata under the appropriate element and so this metadata standard is not as restrictive as it first appeared (to me anyway). One issue in the current version: Is the following true? From the PARADISEC experience it seems that every element needs to have a namespace declared: >By convention the namespace prefix olac is used, and the DC >namespace is declared to be the default so that the metadata >element tags need not be prefixed. Thanks for the opportunity to comment Nick >Hi folks, > >We haven't heard any feedback on the metadata document. Please send any >comments this week (i.e. by Friday 17 October). If you think it is ok as it >is, please let us know, thanks. > > http://www.language-archives.org/OLAC/metadata.html > >Steven (& Gary) > >---- > >Dear implementers of the OLAC Metadata standard, > >At our last workshop in December 2002 we established version 1.0 of >the OLAC Metadata set. This document defines the format used by the >OLAC repositories for the interchange of metadata within the framework >of the Open Archives Initiative (OAI). The metadata set is based on >Qualified Dublin Core, but the format allows for the use of >extensions to express community-specific qualifiers ("OLAC extensions"). > >At present there are five OLAC extensions in use, for Discourse Types, >Language Identification, Linguistic Field, Linguistic Data Types, and >Participant Roles. Four of these are now documented as draft OLAC >Recommendations, thanks to Heidi Johnson, Helen Aristar Dry and >Michael Appleby [http://www.language-archives.org/REC/olac-extensions.html] > >OLAC Metadata is currently in Candidate status, and we feel it is now >time to do the final processing to promote it to Adopted status. >According to the OLAC Process, we are now issuing a call for review >``in which the community members who have actually put the document to >use are invited to describe their experience and comment on whether it >is ready to advance to adoption, potentially with changes they might >recommend.'' > >Would you please read the OLAC Metadata document once more and direct >feedback to this list or directly to us? Is it ready for adoption as >an OLAC Standard, i.e. as a set of specifications that archives must >follow when implementing an OLAC-compliant repository? Please respond >by Friday 10 October at the latest. > >After this deadline, the OLAC Council will review your feedback and >determine any final wording changes. If there is a consensus that the >document is ready, the Council will approve it for adoption as an OLAC >Standard. > >The document can be found at: > > http://www.language-archives.org/OLAC/metadata.html > >Thanks, > >Steven & Gary -- Project Manager PARADISEC Pacific And Regional Archive for DIgital Sources in Endangered Cultures http://www.paradisec.org.au Project Manager nickt at paradisec.org.au Ph 61 (0)3 8344 5185 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ruyng at GATE.SINICA.EDU.TW Tue Oct 14 07:24:52 2003 From: ruyng at GATE.SINICA.EDU.TW (Ru-Yng Chang) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:24:52 +0800 Subject: OLAC Metadata Standard: Call for review Message-ID: Re: OLAC Metadata Standard: Call for reviewI'm sorry. I'm late. I have some comments and information. 1. I agree to include additional element or refinement under the DC element, too. Giving an example in the document would be better. 2. There are some inconsistent update dates between "Recommended metadata extensions" and each document of extension. eg. Code for Discourse Types(Recommended metadata extensions, http://www.language-archives.org/REC/olac-extensions.html)-- Date: 2002-11-21. OLAC Discourse Type Vocabulary(http://www.language-archives.org/REC/discourse.html)--Date issued: 2003-01-27 3. Avoid reduplicating the vocabulary item of the OLAC extension and the third-party extension. The member of OLAC will be notified as soon as there is any change in the OLAC extension. 4. I have completed the Chinese translation for OLAC Metadata(2003-05-31) ,OLAC Linguistic Subject Vocabulary(2003-01-21), OLAC Linguistic Data Type Vocabulary(2002-12-12), but these documents have not yet been carefully proofread. I will continue to translate related documents into Chinese. I will give feedback to OLAC as soon as the mission is accomplished. Thanks. Ru-Yng Chang ----- Original Message ----- From: Nicholas Thieberger To: OLAC-IMPLEMENTERS at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 8:04 AM Subject: Re: OLAC Metadata Standard: Call for review Having gone through a long process of implementation of the OLAC metadata set I appreciate the work that has gone into developing it. I also appreciate that it is possible to include additional metadata under the appropriate element and so this metadata standard is not as restrictive as it first appeared (to me anyway). One issue in the current version: Is the following true? From the PARADISEC experience it seems that every element needs to have a namespace declared: By convention the namespace prefix olac is used, and the DC namespace is declared to be the default so that the metadata element tags need not be prefixed. Thanks for the opportunity to comment Nick Hi folks, We haven't heard any feedback on the metadata document. Please send any comments this week (i.e. by Friday 17 October). If you think it is ok as it is, please let us know, thanks. http://www.language-archives.org/OLAC/metadata.html Steven (& Gary) ---- Dear implementers of the OLAC Metadata standard, At our last workshop in December 2002 we established version 1.0 of the OLAC Metadata set. This document defines the format used by the OLAC repositories for the interchange of metadata within the framework of the Open Archives Initiative (OAI). The metadata set is based on Qualified Dublin Core, but the format allows for the use of extensions to express community-specific qualifiers ("OLAC extensions"). At present there are five OLAC extensions in use, for Discourse Types, Language Identification, Linguistic Field, Linguistic Data Types, and Participant Roles. Four of these are now documented as draft OLAC Recommendations, thanks to Heidi Johnson, Helen Aristar Dry and Michael Appleby [http://www.language-archives.org/REC/olac-extensions.html] OLAC Metadata is currently in Candidate status, and we feel it is now time to do the final processing to promote it to Adopted status. According to the OLAC Process, we are now issuing a call for review ``in which the community members who have actually put the document to use are invited to describe their experience and comment on whether it is ready to advance to adoption, potentially with changes they might recommend.'' Would you please read the OLAC Metadata document once more and direct feedback to this list or directly to us? Is it ready for adoption as an OLAC Standard, i.e. as a set of specifications that archives must follow when implementing an OLAC-compliant repository? Please respond by Friday 10 October at the latest. After this deadline, the OLAC Council will review your feedback and determine any final wording changes. If there is a consensus that the document is ready, the Council will approve it for adoption as an OLAC Standard. The document can be found at: http://www.language-archives.org/OLAC/metadata.html Thanks, Steven & Gary -- Project Manager PARADISEC Pacific And Regional Archive for DIgital Sources in Endangered Cultures http://www.paradisec.org.au Project Manager nickt at paradisec.org.au Ph 61 (0)3 8344 5185 From sb at CS.MU.OZ.AU Fri Oct 31 20:01:01 2003 From: sb at CS.MU.OZ.AU (Steven Bird) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 07:01:01 +1100 Subject: OLAC Metadata Standard: Call for review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 10:04, Nicholas Thieberger wrote: > > Having gone through a long process of implementation of the OLAC > metadata set I appreciate the work that has gone into developing it. > > I also appreciate that it is possible to include additional metadata > under the appropriate element and so this metadata standard > is not as restrictive as it first appeared (to me anyway). > > One issue in the current version: Is the following true? From the > PARADISEC experience it seems that every element needs to have a > namespace declared: > >By convention the namespace prefix olac is used, and the DC > >namespace is declared to be the default so that the metadata > >element tags need not be prefixed. > > Thanks for the opportunity to comment > > Nick In the process of getting the PARADISEC repository working, we discovered that the static repository gateway did not support XML files that use Apple Macintosh end-of-line characters (that bug is now fixed). Before we discovered that this was the problem, we tried modifying the repository file to give dc as an explicit namespace. I've now re-checked, and can confirm that OLAC records in static repository files can declare dc as the default namespace. However, I don't think the standard should specify this kind of implementation detail. In the process of experimenting with the static repository gateway, I discovered another bug in the implementation which the Los Alamos people have fixed. Now it is possible to declare all namespaces on the Repository element (the root element of the static repository file), instead of declaring them on each record. This removes a lot of clutter from the files and makes manual editing much easier. Steven Bird From sb at LDC.UPENN.EDU Mon Oct 13 20:21:35 2003 From: sb at LDC.UPENN.EDU (Steven Bird) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 06:21:35 +1000 Subject: OLAC Metadata Standard: Call for review Message-ID: Hi folks, We haven't heard any feedback on the metadata document. Please send any comments this week (i.e. by Friday 17 October). If you think it is ok as it is, please let us know, thanks. http://www.language-archives.org/OLAC/metadata.html Steven (& Gary) ---- Dear implementers of the OLAC Metadata standard, At our last workshop in December 2002 we established version 1.0 of the OLAC Metadata set. This document defines the format used by the OLAC repositories for the interchange of metadata within the framework of the Open Archives Initiative (OAI). The metadata set is based on Qualified Dublin Core, but the format allows for the use of extensions to express community-specific qualifiers ("OLAC extensions"). At present there are five OLAC extensions in use, for Discourse Types, Language Identification, Linguistic Field, Linguistic Data Types, and Participant Roles. Four of these are now documented as draft OLAC Recommendations, thanks to Heidi Johnson, Helen Aristar Dry and Michael Appleby [http://www.language-archives.org/REC/olac-extensions.html] OLAC Metadata is currently in Candidate status, and we feel it is now time to do the final processing to promote it to Adopted status. According to the OLAC Process, we are now issuing a call for review ``in which the community members who have actually put the document to use are invited to describe their experience and comment on whether it is ready to advance to adoption, potentially with changes they might recommend.'' Would you please read the OLAC Metadata document once more and direct feedback to this list or directly to us? Is it ready for adoption as an OLAC Standard, i.e. as a set of specifications that archives must follow when implementing an OLAC-compliant repository? Please respond by Friday 10 October at the latest. After this deadline, the OLAC Council will review your feedback and determine any final wording changes. If there is a consensus that the document is ready, the Council will approve it for adoption as an OLAC Standard. The document can be found at: http://www.language-archives.org/OLAC/metadata.html Thanks, Steven & Gary From nickt at PARADISEC.ORG.AU Tue Oct 14 00:04:04 2003 From: nickt at PARADISEC.ORG.AU (Nicholas Thieberger) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:04:04 +1000 Subject: OLAC Metadata Standard: Call for review In-Reply-To: <1066076498.1965.118.camel@aviary> Message-ID: Having gone through a long process of implementation of the OLAC metadata set I appreciate the work that has gone into developing it. I also appreciate that it is possible to include additional metadata under the appropriate element and so this metadata standard is not as restrictive as it first appeared (to me anyway). One issue in the current version: Is the following true? From the PARADISEC experience it seems that every element needs to have a namespace declared: >By convention the namespace prefix olac is used, and the DC >namespace is declared to be the default so that the metadata >element tags need not be prefixed. Thanks for the opportunity to comment Nick >Hi folks, > >We haven't heard any feedback on the metadata document. Please send any >comments this week (i.e. by Friday 17 October). If you think it is ok as it >is, please let us know, thanks. > > http://www.language-archives.org/OLAC/metadata.html > >Steven (& Gary) > >---- > >Dear implementers of the OLAC Metadata standard, > >At our last workshop in December 2002 we established version 1.0 of >the OLAC Metadata set. This document defines the format used by the >OLAC repositories for the interchange of metadata within the framework >of the Open Archives Initiative (OAI). The metadata set is based on >Qualified Dublin Core, but the format allows for the use of >extensions to express community-specific qualifiers ("OLAC extensions"). > >At present there are five OLAC extensions in use, for Discourse Types, >Language Identification, Linguistic Field, Linguistic Data Types, and >Participant Roles. Four of these are now documented as draft OLAC >Recommendations, thanks to Heidi Johnson, Helen Aristar Dry and >Michael Appleby [http://www.language-archives.org/REC/olac-extensions.html] > >OLAC Metadata is currently in Candidate status, and we feel it is now >time to do the final processing to promote it to Adopted status. >According to the OLAC Process, we are now issuing a call for review >``in which the community members who have actually put the document to >use are invited to describe their experience and comment on whether it >is ready to advance to adoption, potentially with changes they might >recommend.'' > >Would you please read the OLAC Metadata document once more and direct >feedback to this list or directly to us? Is it ready for adoption as >an OLAC Standard, i.e. as a set of specifications that archives must >follow when implementing an OLAC-compliant repository? Please respond >by Friday 10 October at the latest. > >After this deadline, the OLAC Council will review your feedback and >determine any final wording changes. If there is a consensus that the >document is ready, the Council will approve it for adoption as an OLAC >Standard. > >The document can be found at: > > http://www.language-archives.org/OLAC/metadata.html > >Thanks, > >Steven & Gary -- Project Manager PARADISEC Pacific And Regional Archive for DIgital Sources in Endangered Cultures http://www.paradisec.org.au Project Manager nickt at paradisec.org.au Ph 61 (0)3 8344 5185 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ruyng at GATE.SINICA.EDU.TW Tue Oct 14 07:24:52 2003 From: ruyng at GATE.SINICA.EDU.TW (Ru-Yng Chang) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:24:52 +0800 Subject: OLAC Metadata Standard: Call for review Message-ID: Re: OLAC Metadata Standard: Call for reviewI'm sorry. I'm late. I have some comments and information. 1. I agree to include additional element or refinement under the DC element, too. Giving an example in the document would be better. 2. There are some inconsistent update dates between "Recommended metadata extensions" and each document of extension. eg. Code for Discourse Types(Recommended metadata extensions, http://www.language-archives.org/REC/olac-extensions.html)-- Date: 2002-11-21. OLAC Discourse Type Vocabulary(http://www.language-archives.org/REC/discourse.html)--Date issued: 2003-01-27 3. Avoid reduplicating the vocabulary item of the OLAC extension and the third-party extension. The member of OLAC will be notified as soon as there is any change in the OLAC extension. 4. I have completed the Chinese translation for OLAC Metadata(2003-05-31) ,OLAC Linguistic Subject Vocabulary(2003-01-21), OLAC Linguistic Data Type Vocabulary(2002-12-12), but these documents have not yet been carefully proofread. I will continue to translate related documents into Chinese. I will give feedback to OLAC as soon as the mission is accomplished. Thanks. Ru-Yng Chang ----- Original Message ----- From: Nicholas Thieberger To: OLAC-IMPLEMENTERS at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 8:04 AM Subject: Re: OLAC Metadata Standard: Call for review Having gone through a long process of implementation of the OLAC metadata set I appreciate the work that has gone into developing it. I also appreciate that it is possible to include additional metadata under the appropriate element and so this metadata standard is not as restrictive as it first appeared (to me anyway). One issue in the current version: Is the following true? From the PARADISEC experience it seems that every element needs to have a namespace declared: By convention the namespace prefix olac is used, and the DC namespace is declared to be the default so that the metadata element tags need not be prefixed. Thanks for the opportunity to comment Nick Hi folks, We haven't heard any feedback on the metadata document. Please send any comments this week (i.e. by Friday 17 October). If you think it is ok as it is, please let us know, thanks. http://www.language-archives.org/OLAC/metadata.html Steven (& Gary) ---- Dear implementers of the OLAC Metadata standard, At our last workshop in December 2002 we established version 1.0 of the OLAC Metadata set. This document defines the format used by the OLAC repositories for the interchange of metadata within the framework of the Open Archives Initiative (OAI). The metadata set is based on Qualified Dublin Core, but the format allows for the use of extensions to express community-specific qualifiers ("OLAC extensions"). At present there are five OLAC extensions in use, for Discourse Types, Language Identification, Linguistic Field, Linguistic Data Types, and Participant Roles. Four of these are now documented as draft OLAC Recommendations, thanks to Heidi Johnson, Helen Aristar Dry and Michael Appleby [http://www.language-archives.org/REC/olac-extensions.html] OLAC Metadata is currently in Candidate status, and we feel it is now time to do the final processing to promote it to Adopted status. According to the OLAC Process, we are now issuing a call for review ``in which the community members who have actually put the document to use are invited to describe their experience and comment on whether it is ready to advance to adoption, potentially with changes they might recommend.'' Would you please read the OLAC Metadata document once more and direct feedback to this list or directly to us? Is it ready for adoption as an OLAC Standard, i.e. as a set of specifications that archives must follow when implementing an OLAC-compliant repository? Please respond by Friday 10 October at the latest. After this deadline, the OLAC Council will review your feedback and determine any final wording changes. If there is a consensus that the document is ready, the Council will approve it for adoption as an OLAC Standard. The document can be found at: http://www.language-archives.org/OLAC/metadata.html Thanks, Steven & Gary -- Project Manager PARADISEC Pacific And Regional Archive for DIgital Sources in Endangered Cultures http://www.paradisec.org.au Project Manager nickt at paradisec.org.au Ph 61 (0)3 8344 5185 From sb at CS.MU.OZ.AU Fri Oct 31 20:01:01 2003 From: sb at CS.MU.OZ.AU (Steven Bird) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 07:01:01 +1100 Subject: OLAC Metadata Standard: Call for review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 10:04, Nicholas Thieberger wrote: > > Having gone through a long process of implementation of the OLAC > metadata set I appreciate the work that has gone into developing it. > > I also appreciate that it is possible to include additional metadata > under the appropriate element and so this metadata standard > is not as restrictive as it first appeared (to me anyway). > > One issue in the current version: Is the following true? From the > PARADISEC experience it seems that every element needs to have a > namespace declared: > >By convention the namespace prefix olac is used, and the DC > >namespace is declared to be the default so that the metadata > >element tags need not be prefixed. > > Thanks for the opportunity to comment > > Nick In the process of getting the PARADISEC repository working, we discovered that the static repository gateway did not support XML files that use Apple Macintosh end-of-line characters (that bug is now fixed). Before we discovered that this was the problem, we tried modifying the repository file to give dc as an explicit namespace. I've now re-checked, and can confirm that OLAC records in static repository files can declare dc as the default namespace. However, I don't think the standard should specify this kind of implementation detail. In the process of experimenting with the static repository gateway, I discovered another bug in the implementation which the Los Alamos people have fixed. Now it is possible to declare all namespaces on the Repository element (the root element of the static repository file), instead of declaring them on each record. This removes a lot of clutter from the files and makes manual editing much easier. Steven Bird