DISCUSSION PAPER NO: 86                                                              


DATE: May 5, 1995
REVISED: 


NAME:          Mapping the Dublin Core Metadata Elements to USMARC

SOURCE:        OCLC/NCSA Metadata Workshop; Library of Congress

SUMMARY:       This paper reviews the discussions held at the OCLC/NCSA
               Metadata Workshop in Dublin, Ohio in March about core
               data elements for discovery and retrieval of Internet
               resources ("metadata") by a diverse group of Internet
               users.  The data elements as defined by the participants
               at the Workshop are listed with possible equivalents in
               USMARC.  Problems in mapping are reviewed and options for
               resolutions are suggested.

KEYWORDS:      OCLC/NCSA Metadata Workshop; Dublin core data elements;
               Internet resources

RELATED:       DP87 (June 1995); DP88 (June 1995); 94-9 (June 1994)


DATES          STATUS/COMMENTS
5/5/95         Forwarded to USMARC Advisory Group for discussion at the
               June 1995 MARBI meetings.

6/26/95        Results of USMARC Advisory Group discussion:
               Participants were interested in this effort and wanted to
               know how it would be implemented.  The discussion paper
               will be reposted on the USMARC list, and the OCLC/NCSA
               Metadata Workshop Report will also be posted to continue
               discussion.  Specific comments were as follows:
               1) Date was unclear. It either should be generalized or
               more specifically defined.
               2) It would be preferable to merge Author and OtherAgent
               and make them one element.  3) Attention needs to be
               given to the question of version; there was no specific
               element for it.
               4) Questions arose as to why Coverage was included, since
               it is not generally applicable.  In addition the term
               "Coverage" is vague and another term might be
               reconsidered.
               5) Abstract would be a useful element; it was explained
               that this data could be under Subject with a scheme
               subelement=abstract.
               6) It was suggested that 040$e be used to identify the
               origin of the metadata as outside the traditional
               cataloging record. Another option is in Leader/17
               (Encoding level) as partial or preliminary.  This needs
               to be considered further.
               7) ObjectType: needs further consideration.  Much of this
               is in 516.

.