DCMI: Guidelines for Dublin Core™ Application Profiles

1. Introduction

When it comes to metadata, one size does not fit all. In fact, one size often does not even fit many. The metadata needs of particular communities and applications are very diverse. The result is a great proliferation of metadata formats, even across applications that have metadata needs in common. The Dublin Core™ Metadata Initiative has addressed this by providing a framework for designing a Dublin Core™ Application Profile (DCAP). A DCAP defines metadata records which meet specific application needs while providing semantic interoperability with other applications on the basis of globally defined vocabularies and models.

Note that a DCAP is a generic construct for designing metadata records that does not require the use of metadata terms defined by DCMI [DCMI-MT]. A DCAP can use any terms that are defined on the basis of RDF, combining terms from multiple namespaces as needed. A DCAP follows the DCMI Abstract Model [DCAM], a generic model for metadata records.

A DCAP includes guidance for metadata creators and clear specifications for metadata developers. By articulating what is intended and can be expected from data, application profiles promote the sharing and linking of data within and between communities. The resulting metadata will integrate with a semantic web of linked data [LINKED]. To achieve this it is recommended that application profiles be developed by a team with specialized knowledge of the resources that need to be described, the metadata to be used in the description of those resources, as well as an understanding of the Semantic Web and the linked data environment.

The interoperability of DCAP-based metadata in linked data environments derives from its basis in standards:

Resource Description Framework (RDF), the foundation standard on which domain standards rest [RDF].
the Dublin Core™ Abstract Model, a generic syntax for metadata records [DCAM],
the Dublin Core™ Description Set Profile, a constraint language for Application Profiles [DCSP]
DCMI guidelines for implementation encodings [DCMI-ENCODINGS],

2. Framework for Dublin Core™ Application Profiles

A DCAP is a document (or set of documents) that specifies and describes the metadata used in a particular application. To accomplish this, a profile:

describes what a community wants to accomplish with its application (Functional Requirements);
characterizes the types of things described by the metadata and their relationships (Domain Model);
enumerates the metadata terms to be used and the rules for their use (Description Set Profile and Usage Guidelines); and
defines the machine syntax that will be used to encode the data (Syntax Guidelines and Data Formats).

Singapore Framework

How these standards fit together is illustrated in the Singapore Framework for Dublin Core™ Application Profiles [DCMI-SF]. The bottom tier, RDF, provides the foundation standards on which domain standards are built. The middle tier defines domain standards that provide structural and semantic stability for Application Profiles. The upper tier holds the design and documentation components of specific metadata applications.

Taking the upper tier of the Singapore Framework as a roadmap, the sections that follow walk through the process of creating a DCAP. To illustrate the process we create a simple application profile that describes books and authors. We call this example MyBookCase.

3. Defining Functional requirements

The purpose of any metadata is to support an activity. Defining clear goals for the application used in that activity is an essential first step.

Functional requirements guide the development of the application profile by providing goals and boundaries and are an essential component of a successful application profile development process. This development is often a broad community task and may involve managers of services, experts in the materials being used, application developers, and potential end-users of the services.

There are methodologies to help in the creation of functional requirements, such as business process modeling, and methods for visualizing requirements, such as the Unified Modeling Language [UML]. Some find that the definition of use cases and scenarios for a particular application helps elicit functional requirements that might otherwise be overlooked.

Functional requirements answer questions such as:

What do you want to accomplish with your application?
What are the limits of your application? What will it not attempt to do?
How do you want the application you create to serve your users?
Will your application need to perform specific actions, such as sorting, or downloading data in particular formats?
What are the key characteristics of your resources, and how does this affect your selection of data elements? For example, do you need to handle a variety of character sets?
What are the key characteristics of your users? Are they associated with a particular institution or are you serving a general public? Do they all speak the same language? How expert are they in relation to the data your application will manage? How expert are they about the type of resources described?
Are there existing community standards that need to be considered?

Functional requirements can include general goals as well as specific tasks that you need to address. Ideally, functional requirements should address the needs of metadata creators, resource users, and application developers so that the resulting application fully supports the needs of the community.

These are some sample requirements from the Scholarly Works Application Profile (SWAP) [SWAP]:

Facilitate identification of open access materials.
Enable identification of the research funder and project code.

A set of functional requirements may include user tasks that must be supported such as the following from the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) [FRBR]:

Use the data to find materials that correspond to the user's stated search criteria.
Use the data retrieved to identify an entity.

For the MyBookCase DCAP our functional requirements are:

Use the data to retrieve books with a title search.
Limit a search to a particular language.
Sort retrieved items by publication date.
Find items about a given subject.
Provide the author's name and email address for contact purposes.

4. Selecting or Developing a Domain model

After defining functional requirements, the next step is to select or develop a domain model. A domain model is a description of what things your metadata will describe, and the relationships between those things. The domain model is the basic blueprint for the construction of the application profile.

The domain model for MyBookCase has two things: Books and Persons (the authors of the books). We will see below how to describe the book using elements such as title and language , and to describe the Person with a name and email address. The domain model for our MyBookCase is simply:

Models can be even simpler than this (e.g., just Book ) or they can be more complex. The domain model for the Scholarly Works Dublin Core™ Application Profile, for example, is based on the library community's domain model: Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) [FRBR]. SWAP defines Scholarly Work in place of FRBR's more general entity Work and introduces new agent relationships beyond those in FRBR, such as isFundedBy and isSupervisedBy. In this way, SWAP makes use of FRBR but customizes the FRBR model to meet its specific needs:

5. Selecting or Defining Metadata Terms

After we have defined the domain model for our metadata, we need to choose properties for describing the things in that model. For example, a Book can have a title and author. The author will be a Person with a name and an email address

The next step, then, is to scan available RDF vocabularies to see whether the properties needed have already been declared and are available for use. Using existing properties, when appropriate, requires less effort and increases the interoperability of your metadata. If the properties one needs are not already available, it is possible to declare one's own, as described in Appendix C.

For the purposes of our simple example, the DCMI Metadata Terms [DCMI-MT] is a source of properties for basic resource description. A more extensive set of properties, directly related to FRBR, is under development for the Resource Description and Access (RDA) standard [RDA_ELEMENTS][RDA_ROLES]. The "Friend of a Friend" vocabulary has useful properties for describing people [FOAF].

The most obvious consideration in evaluating terms from existing vocabularies is their definition. The Dublin Core™ property "title", for example, is defined as "a name given to the resource". If the definition fits your needs, this property is a candidate for use in your profile. However, the suitability of a property for use in a particular application also depends on the type of values the property can have. The types of values intended for your properties must match the allowed value types of the existing properties you wish to use.

You may find it useful to ask the following questions about the values you intend to use with each of the properties needed in the profile. Note that for any given property, there may be more than one "yes" answer.

Do you want to use free text for the value of the property?
Will the free text need to follow a pre-defined format such as the W3C format for dates ("YYYY-MM-DD")?
Will you want to select valid values from a controlled list?
- If so, is that list already available somewhere, or will you need to create it?
- Do you want to limit the valid values to a selection from a list, or can unlisted values be used?
- Have the values in the list been assigned identifiers (in the form of URIs)? Or do you anticipate that URIs could be available for them at a future date?
Will single value strings suffice (e.g., "1989" or "John Adams") or is there potentially a need for more complex descriptive structures with multiple components, as when an author is described with a name , email address , and affiliation?

Looking again at our MyBookCase , this is how we might answer the questions about the properties for book:

The title will be transcribed from the book itself. It will be a free text string.
We want to use the date property in various ways in our software application, such as sorting a set of retrieved bibliographic records, so we want to be sure that dates are presented in a uniform way as a structured string.
We want to indicate the language of the book so that users can limit their searches by language. To make sure that languages are always input in the same way, we want to use a controlled list of languages.
We want to record the subject from a controlled list. At least one possible controlled list, the Library of Congress Subject Headings, is available to us with URIs identifying the vocabulary values [LCSH].
We know that our author is not a single text string but will be described with several pieces of information, such as name and email address.

The metadata development process will use these decisions to create the technical model of the data elements as described in Appendix C. This analysis results in the following data model, which is consistent with RDF and the DCMI Abstract Model:

title
For title we can use the Dublin Core™ property
dcterms:title, which can take a free text string (a "literal").

date Because we want to perform
automated operations like sorting on the date,
we can select the Dublin Core™ property dcterms:date.
This property can take a string value. We can indicate that
the value string is formatted in accordance with the W3C
Date and Time Formats specification by using syntax encoding
scheme dcterms:W3CDTF.

language
The language needs to be selected from a controlled list.
We achieve this by requiring the use of
three-letter codes listed in the international standard ISO
639-3 for the representation of names of languages (such as
"eng" for "English") together with the syntax encoding scheme
dcterms:ISO639-3 as a datatype. For this, we can use
the DCMI property dcterms:language, which can accommodate
either an identifier for the language term or a string.

subject

We want to record the subject using a
controlled list. Rather than create our own, it is less work
to make use of a list that already exists, and this also
increases the potential for interoperability for our data. We
decide that the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH)
meet our needs. Because the terms in LCSH are
available as a formal vocabulary using the RDF vocabulary
Simple Knowledge Organization System [SKOS],
we have the option to indicate each subject by using the URI
that identifies it. For example, the Library of Congress
subject heading "Islam and Science" has been assigned the URI
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85068424. The DCMI property
dcterms:subject can support the use of plain strings or a URI.
author
Because our author needs to be
described with multiple components, such as name and email
address, the author property will need to have a
non-literal range so that a separate but linked description can
be created in the metadata record. The Dublin Core™ property
dcterms:creator can be used with a non-literal
value, so we will use this in MyBookCase.

The selection of properties for describing the
author as a person follows the same
model:

The *person* has a name, but we want to record the forename and family name separately rather than as a single string. DCMI Metadata Terms has no such properties, so we will take the properties foaf:firstName and foaf:family_name from the Friend of a Friend vocabulary [FOAF].

In order to record an email address as contact information for the *person*, we will use the property foaf:mbox, which has a non-literal range, and use mailto: URIs as values.

These decisions are summarized in the table below, which reflects the technical analysis of the properties that is described in Appendix C. The column header terms are defined in the Dublin Core™ Abstract model [DCAM].

Property	Range	Value String	SES URI	Value URI	VES URI	Related description
dcterms:title	literal	YES	no	not applicable [1]	not applicable	not applicable
dcterms:created	literal	YES	YES [2]	not applicable	not applicable	not applicable
dcterms:language	non-literal	YES	YES [3]	no	no	no
dcterms:subject	non-literal	YES	no	YES	YES [4]	no
dcterms:creator	non-literal	YES	no	no	no	YES
foaf:firstName	literal	YES	no	not applicable	not applicable	not applicable
foaf:family_name	literal	YES	no	not applicable	not applicable	not applicable
foaf:mbox	non-literal	no	no	YES [5]	no	no

[1] These values are not applicable for values with a "literal" range.

[2] http://purl.org/dc/terms/W3CDTF

[3] http://purl.org/dc/terms/ISO639-2

[4] http://purl.org/dc/terms/LCSH

[5] Email addresses can be given using mailto: URIs.

6. Designing the Metadata Record with a Description Set Profile

The next step is to describe the metadata record in detail.
In the DCMI approach, a metadata record is based on the
Description Set Model (itself part of the DCMI Abstract Model
DCAM (see Appendix
A), and the record's design is detailed in a Description
Set Profile (or DSP) using a DSP constraint language [DSP]. For each Description and Statement
in a record, the DSP defines a template, and each
template holds relevant constraints specifying
technical details such as the repeatability of elements or
restrictions on allowable values. This section presents a simple
Description Set Profile for MyBookCase.

A DSP contains one Description Template for each
thing in the domain model, which in turn contain
statement templates for all of the properties that describe the
thing. These templates also define any rules that constrain the
use of the description or the properties, such as value types or
requirements and repeatability.

The DSP for MyBookCase will have two Description Templates:
one for Book and one for Person. Each Description Template
has a Statement Template for each of the properties used to
describe the Book or Person. A statement template names the property and contains all the constraints on
the property, value strings, vocabulary encoding schemes, etc. that
apply to a single kind of statement.

If we decide that each metadata record is to represent exactly one book, then a
book Description Template will occur once and only once in each Description Set:

DescriptionSet: MyBookCase
   Description template: Book
   minimum = 1; maximum = 1

We can decide that each Book must have one (and only one)
title, which is identified with the property URI
http://purl.org/dc/terms/title.

Statement Templates
are also created for each of the other properties used to describe
a Book (with occurrence options and other constraints as
needed):

DescriptionSet: MyBookCase
   Description template: Book
   minimum = 1; maximum = 1
       Statement template: title
       minimum = 1; maximum = 1
         Property: http://purl.org/dc/terms/title
         Type of Value = "literal"
       Statement template: dateCreated
       minimum = 0; maximum = 1
         Property: http://purl.org/dc/terms/created
         Type of Value = "literal"
         Syntax Encoding Scheme URI = http://purl.org/dc/terms/W3CDTF
       Statement template: language
       minimum = 0; maximum = 3
         Property: http://purl.org/dc/terms/language
         Type of Value = "non-literal"
         takes list = yes
         Syntax Encoding Scheme URI = http://purl.org/dc/terms/ISO639-2
       Statement template: subject
       minimum = 0; maximum = unlimited
         Property: http://purl.org/dc/terms/LCSH
         Type of Value = "non-literal"
         takes list = yes
         Value Encoding Scheme URI = http://lcsh.info/      
       Statement template: author
       minimum = 0; maximum = 5 
         Property: http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator
         Type of Value = "non-literal"
         defined as = person

Some of the above properties have a minimum
occurrence of 0 (zero). This is a way of saying that
these properties are optional in our record and that a record is valid even if these properties are not present.
Some of the properties are repeatable, such as language, which can
occur as many as three times, and author, which can occur
as many as five times. We've defined the author as having the
value of Person, which is described in its own Description
Template:

Description template: Person id=person
   minimum = 0; maximum = unlimited
   Statement template: givenName
     Property: http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/givenname
     minimum = 0; maximum = 1 
     Type of Value = "literal"
   Statement template: familyName
     Property: http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/family_name
     minimum = 0; maximum = 1 
     Type of Value = "literal"
   Statement template: email
     Property: http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/mbox
     minimum = 0; maximum = unlimited
     Type of Value = "non-literal"
     value URI = mandatory

A given Person can have one optional given name and one
optional family name, each of which are literal strings. A
Person can also have an email address which must be represented
by a URI with the prefix mailto:. Because many of us have more
than one email address, we allow this statement to repeat
as often as necessary.

We allow our Person description template to be used any number of times in the
metadata record. This may seem to conflict with the fact that
Person can only be used to represent an author up to five times in the
Book description, but we anticipate other possible uses for
Person in our record, such as subjects of a book, so we have
chosen not to limit its number in the record in general.

Note that each Person description contains data elements
for only one person. This also means that an author
statement will have only one Person value. If there are two
authors, then two author statements will be needed in
the metadata record, each representing one person. One might allow a single person to have more than one name,
such as real names and pseudonyms; however, the metadata would
clearly distinguish the case of multiple authors (multiple
Description Templates) from that of a single author with
multiple names (multiple Statement Templates).

If you wish to include an affiliated institution for the
author, you may want to create an institution
Description Template that contains the name and location of that
institution, which will then link to the author
Description Template. You may also have other uses for corporate
names and locations such as for recording information about
the publisher of the book.

This completes the simple Description Set Profile for
MyBookCase; see Appendix B for a version
of this DSP encoded in XML.

7. Usage Guidelines

A Description Set Profile defines the "what" of the
application profile; usage guidelines provide the "how" and
"why". Usage guidelines offer instructions to those
who will create the metadata records. Ideally, they
explain each property and anticipate the decisions that
must be made in the course of creating a metadata record.
Documentation for metadata creators presents some of the
same information that is included in the DSP, but in a more
human-understandable form. Those inputting metadata will need
to know: is this property required? is it repeatable? am I limited
in the values that I can use with the property? Oftentimes
a user interface can answer these questions, for example by
presenting the metadata creator with a list of valid values
from which to choose.

Some examples of the kinds of rules that might appear in usage guidelines are:

For works of multiple authorship, the order of authors and how many to include (e.g. "the first three", or "no more than twenty")
How to interpret the prescribed vocabulary of document types
The minimum required elements for a "minimal" record
Character sets, punctuation, and abbreviations to be used in strings

In some cases where usage guidelines are relatively simple, they may be included
in the DSP document with the description of the property. The Scholarly Works
Application Profile is an example
where guidance instructions are included alongside the
the Description Set Profile definition.

Other communities may have highly complex rules which,
due to their length and complexity, are
best presented as separate documents.
For example, the Anglo-American Cataloguing
Rules used as guidelines by some libraries are recorded in
a 600-page book [AACR2]. Instructions
relating to titles appear in many of its chapters,
cover many pages of text. Guidelines of this length may best be
presented separately from the DSP.

8. Syntax Guidelines

The technologies described in this document are syntax
neutral; that is, they do not require any particular
machine-readable encoding syntax as long as the syntax employed
can fully express the values and relationships defined in
the DCAP.

To help developers turn their application profiles into
functioning software applications, DCMI has developed various encoding
guidelines [DCMI-ENCODINGS].
Description Set Profiles can be deployed using any concrete
implementation syntax for which a mapping to the abstract
model has been specified. DCMI has developed or is developing
guidelines for encoding DCAM-based metadata in HTML/XHTML,
XML, and RDF/XML; others could be added in the future. There
is no restriction on use of other types of syntax as long as
the resulting data format is compatible with the foundation
standards and with the DCMI Abstract Model.

References

AACR2
American Library Association and Library Association, Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd ed. (London: Library Association, 1978).

CTERMS
Dublin Core™ Collection Description Terms.

<http://dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/collection-description/collection-terms/2007-03-09/>

See also RDF schema <
http://dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/collection-description/collection-terms/2007-03-09/cldterms.rdf>

COOLURIS
Sauermann, Leo, Richard Cyganiak, eds. Cool URIs for the Semantic Web.

<http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/

DCMI-ENCODINGS
DCMI Encoding Guidelines

<http://dublincore.org/schemas/>

DCMI-MT
DCMI Metadata Terms. January, 2008.

<http://dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/>

See also RDF schema <http://dublincore.org/2008/01/14/dcterms.rdf>

DCAM

Powell, Andy, Mikael Nilsson, Ambjoern Naeve, Pete Johnston and Thomas
Baker. DCMI Abstract Model. DCMI Recommendation. June 2007.

<http://dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/abstract-model/2007-06-04/>

DCMI-SF

Nilsson, Mikael, Thomas Baker, Pete Johnston. The Singapore Framework for Dublin Core™ Application Profiles.

<http://dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/singapore-framework/2008-01-14/>

DSP

Nilsson, Mikael. Description Set Profiles: A constraint language for Dublin Core™ Application Profiles. March, 2008.

<http://dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dc-dsp/2008-03-31/>

ETERMS
Eprints Terms.

<http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Eprints_Terms>

FOAF

Brickley, Dan, Libby Miller. FOAF Vocabulary Specification 0.91. November, 2007

<http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/>

FRBR

IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records.
(1998). Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records - Final Report.
Munich: K.G. Saur. Also available at
<http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/index.htm>

LCSH

Library of Congress Subject Headings. In: Library of Congress Authorities and Vocabularies.

<http://id.loc.gov/authorities>

LINKED

Linked Data

<http://linkeddata.org>

RDA-ELEMENTS
<http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/1.html>

RDA-ELEMENTS
<http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/4.html>

RDF
World Wide Web Consortium. Resource Description Framework
(RDF) <http://www.w3.org/RDF>

RDFS

Brickley, Dan and R.V. Guha, editors. RDF Vocabulary Description Language
1.0: RDF Schema. W3C Recommendation. 10 February 2004.

<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/>

RDF-PRIMER

Manola, Frank, Eric Miller. RDF Primer. W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004.

<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/>

RECIPES
Berrueta, Diego, Jon Phipps, eds. Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies.

<http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/>

RFC3066
Alvestrand, H. Tags for the Identification of Languages. January, 2001.

<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3066.txt>

SWAP
Scholarly Works Application Profile.

<http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Eprints_Application_Profile>

UML
Booch, Grady, James Rumbaugh and Ivar Jacobson. The Unified Modeling Language
User Guide. Addison-Wesley, 1998.

Appendix A: Description Set Model (from DCMI Abstract Model)

According to the "Description Set Model" of the DCMI Abstract Model
[DCAM], a Dublin Core™ description set has the following structure:

a description set is made up of one or more descriptions
a description is made up of
- zero or one described resource URI and
- one or more statements
a statement is made up of
- exactly one property URI and
- exactly one value surrogate
a value surrogate is either a literal value surrogate or a non-literal value surrogate
- a literal value surrogate is made up of
  - exactly one value string
- a non-literal value surrogate is made up of
  - zero or one value URIs
  - zero or one vocabulary encoding scheme URIs
  - zero or more value strings
a value string is either a plain value string or a typed value string
- a plain value string may be associated with a value string language
- a typed value string is associated with a syntax encoding scheme URI
a non-literal value may be described by another description.

Appendix B: MyBookCase Description Set Profile

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<DescriptionSetTemplate xmlns="http://dublincore.org/xml/dc-dsp/2008/01/14" 
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" 
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://dublincore.org/xml/dc-dsp/2008/01/14">
    <DescriptionTemplate ID="Book" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1" standalone="yes">
        <StatementTemplate ID="title" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1" type="literal">
            <Property>http://purl.org/dc/terms/title</Property>
        </StatementTemplate>
        <StatementTemplate ID="dateCreated" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1" type="literal">
            <Property>http://purl.org/dc/terms/created</Property>
            <LiteralConstraint>
                <SyntaxEncodingScheme>http://purl.org/dc/terms/W3CDTF</SyntaxEncodingScheme>
            </LiteralConstraint>
        </StatementTemplate>
        <StatementTemplate ID="language" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="3" type="nonliteral">
            <Property>http://purl.org/dc/terms/language</Property>
            <NonLiteralConstraint>
                <VocabularyEncodingSchemeURI>http://purl.org/dc/terms/ISO639-3</VocabularyEncodingSchemeURI>
                <ValueStringConstraint minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/>
            </NonLiteralConstraint>
        </StatementTemplate>
        <StatementTemplate ID="subject" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="infinite" type="nonliteral">
            <Property>http://purl.org/dc/terms/LCSH</Property>
            <NonLiteralConstraint>
                <VocabularyEncodingSchemeURI>http://lcsh.info</VocabularyEncodingSchemeURI>
                <ValueStringConstraint minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/>
            </NonLiteralConstraint>
        </StatementTemplate>
        <StatementTemplate ID="author" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="5" type="nonliteral">
            <Property>http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator</Property>
            <NonLiteralConstraint descriptionTemplateRef="person"/>
        </StatementTemplate>
    </DescriptionTemplate>
    <DescriptionTemplate ID="person" minOccurs="0" standalone="no">
        <StatementTemplate ID="givenName" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1" type="literal">
            <Property>http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/givenname</Property>
        </StatementTemplate>
        <StatementTemplate ID="familyName" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1" type="literal">
            <Property>http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/family_name</Property>
        </StatementTemplate>
        <StatementTemplate ID="email" minOccurs="0" type="nonliteral">
            <Property>http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/mbox</Property>
            <NonLiteralConstraint>
                <ValueURIOccurrence>mandatory</ValueURIOccurrence>
            </NonLiteralConstraint>
        </StatementTemplate>
    </DescriptionTemplate>
</DescriptionSetTemplate>

Appendix C: Using RDF properties in profiles: a technical primer

Every application profile design team should include members
who understand basic principles for designing metadata on
the basis of RDF. This section provides a brief overview
of the modeling choices involved in the selection and use
of RDF properties in application profiles. The section
concludes by relating the technical design choices to the
property-by-property requirements with regard to:

Whether free text will be used,
Whether the free text will ever need follow a pre-defined format,
Whether valid values should be selected from a controlled list, and
Whether single strings will suffice or more complex values are needed.

The basics of RDF properties

RDF properties are designed to be referenced and processed
in a consistent way independently of the contexts in which
they appear. The Dublin Core™ element title,
for example, can be used in one context for describing books
and in another for describing statues. When used correctly
and in accordance with the RDF "grammar" for data, such
globally defined vocabularies provide a basis for integrating
resource descriptions from a variety of sources into coherent
data aggregations.

In order to be usable in RDF-based metadata, properties
must be identified with Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs).
The Dublin Core™ element title, for example, is
identified with the URI http://purl.org/dc/terms/title
(abbreviated here as dcterms:title). Good practice
dictates that these URIs be declared and documented somewhere
as "RDF properties". This declaration may be made in prose
but typically is also made in a machine-readable RDF schema
and ideally by the owner of the Internet domain or sub-domain
used for the URIs. The URI for dcterms:title,
for example, resolves (by redirection) to an RDF schema—
http://dublincore.org/2008/01/14/dcterms.rdf at the
time of writing—which says in a machine-understandable way
that dcterms:title is an RDF property. The subdomain
http://purl.org/dc/ is "owned" (in the sense of
"controlled") by the organization Dublin Core™ Metadata
Initiative.

In designing a metadata application, it is for many
reasons desirable to use RDF properties that have already been
declared somewhere. At a minimum, this is easier than doing
the extra work involved in declaring one's own RDF properties.
More importantly, the use of known properties provides a basis
for semantic interoperability with metadata from other sources.
Bear in mind that individuals who create vocabularies may
change jobs and move on; research projects finish their work
and eventually their servers disappear; and ownership of domain
names may lapse, so that URIs which resolve today to an RDF
schema might ten years from now resolve to shoe advertisements.
It is best to use properties backed by organizations that
have made a commitment to their maintenance.

RDF property semantics

RDF properties are usually provided with natural-language
definitions. Designers of application profiles should take
care to use the properties in ways that are compatible with
these definitions. Designers may add technical constraints
on use of properties (such as repeatability), or provide more
narrow interpretations of definitions for particular purposes,
but they should not contradict the meaning of the properties
intended by their maintainers.

The intended meaning of a property is determined not just
by natural-language definitions but also by formally declared
relationships of the given property to other properties.
Definitions typically specify a formal "domain" (the
class of things that can be described by the property)
and a "range" (a class of things that can be values).
This additional information improves the utility of RDF
properties by enabling inferences about the things they
are used to describe. The property foaf:img
(image), for example, has a domain of
foaf:Person and a range of foaf:Image,
so that when metadata-consuming applications find metadata
using the property foaf:img, they can automatically
infer that the thing being described with this property is a
person and that the value being referred to by the property
is an image. Properties may also be semantic refinements of
other properties. The property dcterms:abstract, for
example, is a sub-property of dcterms:description,
meaning that anything which is said to have an abstract also
may be said to have a description.

For the purposes of re-using properties in application
profiles, it is especially important to check whether or
not the properties are intended to be used with values
that are literals. Properties that are intended to be used
with values that are literals—i.e., with values that by
definition may consist of just one value string, optionally
augmented with a language tag (in a "plain value string")
or a datatype identifier (in a "typed value string")—
are said to have a "literal" range. Examples of
properties with a "literal" range are dcterms:date,
which is declared with a range of rdfs:Literal,
and foaf:firstName, which is defined as being an
owl:DatatypeProperty. The advantage of properties
with a "literal" range is simplicity. The metadata carries—
and metadata-consuming applications expect—just one plain
or typed value string, making the metadata simple to encode
and simple to process.

Properties with anything other than a "literal" range are
said to have a "non-literal" range. Examples of properties
with a "non-literal" range include dcterms:license,
with the range dcterms:LicenseDocument,
and foaf:holdsAccount, with the range
foaf:OnlineAccount. Where literal-range properties
may be simpler to process, non-literal-range properties are
more flexible and extensible. In descriptive metadata, literal
values constitute "terminals" (in the sense of "end point");
the value string "Mary Jones" cannot itself be the starting
point for any further description of the person Mary Jones.
A non-literal value, in contrast, has hooks to which one
may attach any number of additional pieces of information
about the person Mary Jones, such as her email address,
institutional affiliation, and date of birth. Potentially,
non-literal values can be represented by any combination of
the following:

A plain or typed value string (Value String in the DCMI Abstract Model)—and not just one, but potentially several in parallel, as in the case of a title rendered in English, French, and Japanese.
A URI identifying the value resource (Value URI).
A URI identifying an enumerated set (or controlled vocabulary) of which the value is a member (Vocabulary Encoding Scheme URI).

Note that the difference between literal-range and
non-literal-range properties is primarily a modeling issue.
The type of property determines how the metadata will be
encoded machine-processably for exchange and interpreted by
applications that consume the metadata. End-users need not
necessarily see the difference. When displayed in a search
result, a value string looks the same regardless of whether
it is directly a literal value or a value string attached to
a non-literal value.

When using an existing property, the choice between a
literal and non-literal range will usually be mandated by
the official definition. If that mandated choice is not
sufficient (e.g., the dcterms:date property has a
literal range and a more complex value is needed), or if a
property with the needed semantics cannot be found anywhere,
then a new property (with a new URI) must be coined.

Coining new RDF properties

By definition, Dublin Core™ application profiles "use"
properties that have been defined somewhere—i.e., somewhere
outside of the profile itself. If no existing property can
be found among any of the well-known vocabularies, then the
designers of an application profile will need to declare
one themselves.

Declaring a new property is in itself not a difficult task.
One gives it a name, formulates a definition, decides whether
it takes a literal or non-literal range, and coins a URI
for the property under a namespace to which one has access
(and not, for example, under http://microsoft.com
or http://amazon.de). Services such as
http://purl.org, which is used for identifying DCMI
properties, provide "persistent" URIs that can be redirected
to documentation at more temporary locations. Guidance for
creating and publishing RDF vocabularies can be found in "Cool
URIs for the Semantic Web" [COOLURIS],
the RDF Primer [RDF-PRIMER], and
"Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies" [RECIPES]. Best-practice examples include
DCMI Metadata Terms [DCMI-MT],
Dublin Core™ Collection Description Terms [CTERMS], and Eprints Terms [ETERMS], It is good practice for terms also
to be published in RDF schemas; for examples, see see the schemas associated
with DCMI Metadata Terms [DCMI-MT]
and Dublin Core™ Collection Description Terms [CTERMS].

Whether to assign a literal or a non-literal range is
essentially a choice between simplicity and extensibility.
Value strings alone may suffice for recording a date
("2008-10-31") or a title ("Gone with the Wind"), but for
authors, one may need to record more than just a name.
When in doubt, it is wise to assign a non-literal range.
In the case of authors, for example, the non-literal range
provides a hook for adding email address, affiliation, and date
of birth or for using a URI to point to a description of the
author somewhere outside one's own application. Because they
support the use of URIs (i.e., the use of URIs "as URIs"
and not just "as strings"), non-literal values are crucial
in achieving the ideal of linked metadata—descriptions
that are cross-referenced using globally valid identifiers.

Translating user-defined data requirements into design decisions

We can now return to the questions asked of data content
experts about each potential property with regard to potential
values.

Do you want to use free text? "Free text" (i.e.,
strings of characters) is called a Value String in the
DCMI Abstract Model and can be used with properties of either
a literal or non-literal range. Note that in some cases,
there may be a requirement to use multiple value strings,
in parallel, in a single statement, for example in the
case of values that are represented in multiple languages.
This can only be done in conjunction with non-literal-range
properties.

Will the free text ever need to follow a pre-defined
format? If so, then the Value String can be used
with a Syntax Encoding Scheme (datatype).

Will single value strings suffice or is there a need
(or potential need) for a more complex structure with multiple
components? If anything more than a single value string
is needed for the value, then the property used must have a
non-literal range. If by chance you have found a property with
the right natural-language definition but the wrong range—
for example, with the more limiting literal range—you may
need to coin your own property, with its own URI, using that
definition with a non-literal range.

Might you ever want to use a URI to identify the value
or point to a description of the value? The DCMI Abstract
Model defines a Value URI as a syntactic construct
separate from a Value String. Value URIs cannot
be used to describe literal values; they must be used with
properties that have a non-literal range. It is of course
possible to record a URI as a Value String—a URI is,
after all, a string—but applications consuming the metadata
on this basis will have no reliable way to distinguish that
string from other strings in order to interpret it
as an identifier.

Will you want to select valid values from a controlled
list? If so, then the following are possible:

Simple lists of text strings may be informally documented as usage guidelines in a Description Set Profile.
Simple lists of text strings may be more formally defined as a Syntax Encoding Scheme (SES, or datatype), with a URI, making the list citable and available for use in many application profiles.
A list of strings may be interpreted as labels for a list of concepts. This is called a Vocabulary Encoding Scheme (VES). Note that in contrast to the individual text strings listed in an SES, the individual concepts of a VES may also, or alternatively, be identified using URIs.
If the list of values is already available somewhere and has already been identified (e.g., by DCMI) as a Syntax Encoding Scheme or Vocabulary Encoding Scheme, then use that URI with the proper modeling construct.
If the list of values is already available somewhere but has not yet been identified as an SES or VES, you may need to interpret which model it more closely fits. Sometimes either interpretation is defensible. Whichever way you decide, it is important that the URI you coin for the encoding scheme be clearly declared as one or the other in order to avoid any ambiguity in the metadata.
If you want to restrict the set of valid values to a fixed list (as opposed to allowing the use of unlisted values), this restriction can be declared and documented in a Description Set Profile.

In general, the use of formally defined values,
such as controlled lists, adds precision to metadata and
thus increases its suitability for automatic processing.
The use of SES and VES, as appropriate, is an important
step in this direction. Increasingly, however, URIs
are being assigned to individual terms in controlled
vocabularies using the RDF vocabulary Simple Knowledge
Organization System [SKOS]. The concept
"World Wide Web" in the Library of Congress Subject
Headings, for example, has recently been assigned the URI
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh95000541#concept. As controlled
vocabularies become increasingly "SKOSified", it will become
easier to use those vocabularies to find and integrate
access to resources from multiple sources on the open Web.
The VES construct can flexibly accommodate the transition
from Value Strings alone, to Value Strings
with VES URIs, and from there to Value URIs
(with or without VES URIs).

Creators:	Karen Coyle Consultant Tom Baker DCMI
Date Issued:	2009-05-18
Latest Version:	https://dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/profile-guidelines/
Release History:	https://dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/profile-guidelines/release_history/
Description:	This document provides guidelines for the creation of Dublin Core Application Profiles. The document explains the key components of a Dublin Core Application Profile and walks through the process of developing a profile. The document is aimed at designers of application profiles -- people who will bring together metadata terms for use within a specific context. It does not address the creation of machine-readable implementations of an application profile nor the design of metadata applications in an broader sense. For additional technical detail the reader is pointed to further sources.

Guidelines for Dublin Core™ Application Profiles

Table of contents