OLAC Metadata Standard: Call for review

[Nicholas Thieberger]

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 <dc:...> 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: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/olac-implementers/attachments/20031014/e30a494e/attachment.htm>