Dublin Core type vocabulary - any thoughts?

I've been blogging in fits and starts the last 2 months due to my new job. For example, I've read Thomas Mann's response to the LC Working Group report, but just haven't had time to throw in my two cents.

I'm going to try something new on the blog. I'd like to share some of my day-to-day metadata issues and see if the "wisdom of the crowd" can help me out.

So, at work we're considering what controlled vocabulary to use for the Dublin Core element "type." We've decided we want something more that the DCMI Type Vocabulary. I think we're going to use DCT2: Dublin Core Type Vocabulary: Subtypes Working Draft.

It seems the work has stopped on DCT2, but I think it would really work for our bibliographic, text-based resources that make up the bulk of our digital collections. Any thoughts? I'd be interested in suggestions of other controlled vocabularies out there.

Comments

[arkham]

I'm not an expert on DC by any means, much less on DCMI Type Vocabulary versus DCT2. However, based on a cursory look, I'd say that DCT2 would allow a lot more specificity than the basic Type Vocabulary. I guess which would work best would depend on the situation, but I'd be tempted to go for DCT2 unless it's a pretty limited collection that's likely to stay that way.

[Chris Schwartz]

Hi arkham,
Thanks for taking a look at these type vocabularies. The only other thing I thought of since writing this is--What vocabularies are being developed by the DCMI/RDA Task Group? But I haven't had a chance to explore this possibility yet.

[Diane Hillmann]

Chris:

The DC2 vocabulary was never finished because the community couldn't agree on the included terms and it became clearer and clearer that the DCMI had no business doing value vocabulary development at that level. So it's not a DC vocabulary in the sense that DCMIType is: no definitions, no URIs, no maintenance.

That said, if you think it works for you, by all means use those terms. I have a suggestion though--make it your own and flesh it out. I hereby invite you to go ahead and register it as yours (or your institution's) on the NSDL Registry (open to all at http://metadataregistry.org). Live it up!

And yes, the DCMI/RDA Task Group will be formally registering some of the RDA value vocabularies as well, probably within the next few months (and we'll announce their presence to all and sundry). Most of them will be pulled right out of the RDA text, but there are also plans to register the RDA/ONIX content and carrier vocabs as well, which may be helpful to you (though I've no timeline--not even a fuzzy one--to offer).

Diane

P.S. The registry has a sandbox and you're welcome to play there for as long as it takes to be comfortable with the process!

[Chris Schwartz]

Hi Diane,
I think we will probably use and develop the DCT2 type vocabulary as you suggested. Since the RDA value vocabularies are still under development. Although I'll take a look at the RDA drafts to see what's there, I don't think the RDA vocabularies will work for our timeline. I think we will go ahead and register DCT2 at the NSDL registry, thanks for this invitation! I'll check out the registry's sandbox. Thanks for your help!