Between 2001 and 2005, some domain-specific properties were added to DCMI Metadata Terms - always, in my recollection, to fill a gap in an application profile under development by a DCMI working group. These are (by profile):
In those years, the Usage Board discussed the idea of flagging these properties with the status of "domain-specific". In the end, I think we decided against doing this in part because there were so few properties, in part because we did not intend to create many more properties of such specificity, and in part because we did have a principled way to distinguish generic properties from "domain-specific" properties.
As we are now facing the possibility of approving more-specific properties in support of the Scholarly Resources Application Profile, we could revisit the idea of giving such properties a status (eg, "domain-specific"). This would give us a basis for separating the documentation of domain-specific properties from the documentation of generic properties.
Between 2001 and 2005, some domain-specific properties were added to DCMI Metadata Terms - always, in my recollection, to fill a gap in an application profile under development by a DCMI working group. These are (by profile):
In those years, the Usage Board discussed the idea of flagging these properties with the status of "domain-specific". In the end, I think we decided against doing this in part because there were so few properties, in part because we did not intend to create many more properties of such specificity, and in part because we did have a principled way to distinguish generic properties from "domain-specific" properties.
As we are now facing the possibility of approving more-specific properties in support of the Scholarly Resources Application Profile, we could revisit the idea of giving such properties a status (eg, "domain-specific"). This would give us a basis for separating the documentation of domain-specific properties from the documentation of generic properties.