Stuart's 12/12/2001 edits of Traugott's base document integrating the Tokyo meeting notes (and adding introductory paragraphs).

Diane's 12/13 suggested edits in red

Stuart's 12/13 suggested edits in blue

Associating schemes with elements per sonline discussions in purple

Guidelines for registration of vocabulary and encoding scheme qualifiers

DCMI recognizes that different discourse and practice communities have legitimate, particular needs to be able to select either value qualifier schemes from an array of recognized controlled vocabularies (e.g., thesauri, taxonomies, ontologies, and word lists) or, value encoding schemes that determine the syntactic structure of those values (e.g., date encoding schemes). To promote the greatest degree of interoperablity, DCMI encourages the registration of recognized value qualifiers with DCMI.

DCMI recognizes that in order to promote interoperability through the common assignment of terms from established, publicly recognized controlled vocabularies and encoding schemes, the most critical, immediate need is to provide registration mechanisms for vocabularies for the “Subject” vocabulary. The immediacy of the need to register “Subject” vocabularies, in no way diminishes the recognized need on the part of DCMI to move forward with all deliberate speed in putting in place the mechanisms for registration of value schemes across the DCMI element set.

1. General

1.1 DCMI does not approve [drop the word "subject" here and we then need only drop the second paragraph of the preamble (and change the registration form) to register schemes other than for subject ... when the time arrives] vocabulary schemes, but acknowledges formally maintained schemes as suitable for use with DC metadata. Thus, the schemes have the status "Registered" which does not necessarily imply that they are recommended by the DCMI.
1.2 DCMI maintained schemes have the status "Recommended".

2. Registration process

2.1 Anyone can propose a scheme for registration by submitting the required information to the web form at: http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/scheme-registry.shtml
2.2 The DCMI Usage Board applies a "fast track" decision process involving the rules and criteria listed below.
2.3 Schemes given the status "Registered" (or "Recommended") are included in the DCMI Registry.

2.4 For each scheme, the registrant should provide the following information:

Full name of the scheme
Suggested abbreviated token (acronym)
Maintenance agency
Maintenance agency contact person
Maintenance agency contact email address
Submitter email address (if different from the maintenance agency contact email address)
Online access point (URL if applicable)
Access information (URL or physical address)
Additional information about the scheme
Domain(s) and extent of usage
Associated element(s) or element qualifier(s)

Example

Full name of the scheme	Dewey Decimal Classification
Abbreviated token (acronym)	DDC
Maintenance agency	OCLC Forest Press
Maintenance agency contact person name	{ Name of current editor or contact person }
Maintenance agency contact email address	dewey@oclc.org
Submitter email address	{ Email address of submitter if different than the maintenance agency }
Online access point	{ Leave blank if there is no online access point }
Access information	http://www.oclc.org/fp/products/index.htm
Additional information about the scheme	License required
Domain(s) and extent of usage	Most frequently used universal classification system for library OPACs and national bibliographies; limited recent usage in web catalogues etc.
Associated element(s) or element qualifier(s)	Subject

3. Rules

3.1 Rules about what kind of schemes will be registered
- 3.1.1 Schemes which may be created and maintained by recognized entities and properly published are registered.
3.2 Rules about the naming of the schemes
- 3.2.1 Schemes should be named with their official names. The name of the organization maintaining or owning the scheme is rarely sufficient since it does not unambiguously stand for the vocabulary alone.
- 3.2.2 The scheme names and tokens are only appropriate for an unchanged use of an official version of the scheme. Unofficial versions, modified versions, unofficial translations and similar should not use the official label but apply a local name (e.g. based on the service, project or provider name. Ex.: The DutchESS service is using a local variant of the BC classification. It should be named DutchESSC or DutchESS-BC if it is really close to the official scheme).
- 3.2.3 A subset of an official scheme where terms are unaltered may not be registered separately.
3.3 Rules about the tokens/acronyms used as DCMI qualifier labels
- 3.3.1 The tokens must be unique. Every effort will be made to maintain the short name proposed by the maintaining agency. In case of collisions, a suitable alternative will be chosen in consultation with the maintaining agency.
- 3.3.2 Existing official acronyms or short names should be used as tokens.
- 3.3.3 Official translated versions receive a label where a standard language code is added, e.g. DDC-fr. This is necessary since translated versions are rarely fully equivalent. Other translations, if registered, will be assigned an alternative name.
3.4 Rules about the specification of scheme versions
- 3.4.1 DCMI will register multiple versions of schemes if they appear to be important and/or it is requested by a user applying for registration.
- 3.4.2 Versioned schemes should be registered and used when there is a considerable probability that databases exist which apply terms and classes belonging to older versions of the scheme.
- 3.4.3 The official version of the scheme used should be indicated like in the following examples: DDC21, DDC21ab-fr (abridged DDC version 21 in French), MSC2000.