The priorities below are based on the October 2011 community survey on improving metadata support. DCAT has interpreted the community priorities based on the survey results and have fleshed out those priorities with detailed descriptions, specifics and examples. Anyone should feel free to add their feedback as we will eventually evolve this page into a project plans.
Improved (or more transparent) flexibility:
- simplify/make more accessible (create a UI) for: (and/or may mean creating more educational/tutorials on how/where to do things)
- import/export to metadata other than DC (like in Eprints where you pick a format for export)
- local customization
- how to plug in metadata schemas
- expose RDF triples
- as discussed in the survey, lock down DC (allow adds, but not changes), isolate where customizations are done
- simplify where/how things are done - bring more functionality to the UI or the metadata registry
...
Hierarchal metadata:
...
- move away from flat DC
...
- which doesn't have relational aspects
...
-relational aspect functional
...
-interative solution - emulating heirarchal behavior
...
- and towards relational aspect functionality - like MODS
- allow relationships between community/collection/bitstream metadata
...
- possible iterative solution - create functionality that emulates hierarchal behavior
- example: adding in author affiliation
...
- example: metadata on bitstream - related back to items
...
Add metadata authority controls/vocabularies
...
- education/tutorials on current add-on
...
...
- open up rights to use a controlled vocal and link
...
- from an external source so it doesn't have to be brought into DSpace - update problem
...
- example: Nat'l Agricultural Library - linked open data, LC, subject based, NLM
...
add metadata authority controls/vocabularies to the data model
-fully support hierarchical metadata schemas
-metadata hierarchy and RDF-style relations
...
-flexibility - local fields an model metadata they way they need it
...