Notes from Last meeting

PLEASE NOTE THAT 
THESE ARE NOT COMPREHENSIVE NOTES. Consider it more like a 
reminder.

 

The meeting mainly 
consisted of a discussion of the proposed Dublin Core set. Also we agreed that 
we would bring in a Dublin Core expert to look over our proposed 
use.

 

The highlighted 
portion below indicates what the discussion was about the various 
tags.

Attendence:

Joe Carmel, Clerk of the House

Louis Drummond, CRS

Ann Washington, CRS

Andy Harvey, Nevada

Don Bergeron, LexisNexis

Chet Ensign, LexisNexis

Cindy Leach, Clerk

Pam Greenberg, NCSL

 

<?xml 
version="1.0"?>

 

<metadata

  
xmlns="http://www.oasis-open.org/legis-metadata"

  
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"

  
xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.oasis-open/legis-metadata/metadata.xsd"

  
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"

  
xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/">

 

 

  <dc:coverage 
xsi:type="dcterms:TGN">United States</dc:coverage>  <!-- In that the United States documents are 
located in .gov as opposed to the normal gov.xx convention, and also the states 
use .st.us . We should discuss this further-->

  
There 
  were no major objections. Just a questions as to what the format for the 
  states would be.

 

  <dc:coverage>United 
States House of Representatives</dc:coverage>

Don-says coverage tags together mean 
they contradictory, may be there should be an attribute. Joe,- should this be 
creator?

 

  <dc:identifier>108 H. 
R. 12 IH<dc:identifier>  <!-- 
GREAT--> 

Don-Bluebook 
or what format?

Ann-Bluebook 
is HR 12

Joe- 
based on internal

Ann-mentions 
use of attribute to make more machine readable

Daniel- 
is it possible to link to naming convention

More 
discussion

 

  <dc:identifier 
xsi:type="dcterms:URI">http://www.us-congress.gov/108/HR/12[IH]<dc:identifier>  <!-- It should be assumed that the the 
document linked to uses a DTD and/or 
Schema -->

 

  <dc:identitfier 
xsi:type="dcterms:URL">http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:hr12:</dc:identifier>  <!-- If the system changes for links, will the old 
links still be usable even if redirected? --> 

 Should 
it be allowed if permanent.

 

  <dc:title>Jobs and 
Growth Tax Act of 2003</dc:title>

Joe-possibly 
more short titles 

There 
is discussion about whether the “Title” is sometimes not the official long 
title, but is a commonly used title. Also there was a suggestion to add 
additional title tags to handle this or use the description.

 

  <dc:creator>McKeon, 
Howard 
P. (Buck) [CA-25]</dc:creator>

Pam 
–indicates that some states use committee

Joe- 
will use cmtes or chamber instead of or addition 

Daniel-both 
or not

Andy-bills 
pass on from session to session using asterisks

 

  <dc:creator 
xsi:type="dcterms:URI">http://bioguide.congress.gov/M000508</dc:creator>  Discussion again of whether 
non-permanent links allowed and realization that creator may indicate very 
different things for different bodies, for example it might be a person or a 
committee.

 

  <dc:description>To make 
changes to the Higher Education Act of 1965 incorporating the results of the FED 
UP Initiative, and for other purposes.</dc:description>

 

   <dc:description 
xsi:type="dcterms:tableOfContents">Sec. 1. Short title; table of 
contents.  Sec. 2. Reference; effective date; implementation.  Title 
I-Technical Amendments  Sec. 101. Technical amendments.  Sec. 102. 
Clerical amendments.  Sec. 103. Study of teacher preparation.  Title 
II-Student Loan Forgiveness  Sec. 201. Cancellation of student loan 
indebtedness for spouses, surviving joint debtors, and parents.  Title 
III-Opportunities for Higher Education via Telecommunications  Sec. 301. 
Exception to 50 percent correspondence course limitations. Sec. 302. Evaluation 
and report<dc:description>

 

  <dc:subject> 
</dc:subject>  <!--Although there has 
been discussion about the difficulty as to acertaining if and what 
subjects the law or proposed legislation can be done, in that legal 
documents should probably not include metadata that is not either clearly stated 
within the text of the document or truly self evident. I would recommend using 
the term "legislation" or "law" or "statute" in the subject field. In this 
way, we will have included clearly within the meta-data, what the document is. 
or better yet... see below in added relation 
tag-->

Not 
sure. No conclusion reached.

 

 

<dc:relation>USCongress/legislation/108/</dc:relation> 
<!-- to make clear that this document is part of a set of proposed 
legislation-->

 

  
<dc:date>2003-01-07</dc:date> General 
agreement.

 

  <dcterms:modified 
refines="dc:date" 
xsi:type="dcterms:W3CDTF">2003-01-07</dcterms:modified> General 
agreement.

 

  
<dc:type>text</dc:type> General 
agreement.

 

  <dc:format 
xsi:type="dcterms:IMT">text/xml</dc:format> General 
agreement.

 

  <dc:language 
xsi:type="dcterns:RFC3066">eng-US</dc:language> General 
agreement.

 

  <dc:rights>This 
information is a U.S. Government Publication. Works by the U. S. Government are 
not eligible for U. S. copyright protection.</dc:rights>  <!--Anytime copyright information is referred to 
there should be a reference/citation to the jurisdiction and either the 
treaty(s) and/or law(s) such as U.S. Code Title 17 Section 105 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=+17usc105 -->

General 
agreement.

 

</metadata>