9. Type Category

John discussed the draft Type Category list that he circulated to the meeting. Tracy questioned why the some definitions on the list were taken from the Government of Canada Type Scheme and not DCMI. John explained that the Canadian definition was clearer. She also questioned who would be responsible for future updating. Gillian suggested that any additions be submitted to DC.

Action: John to ask the Canadians about the possibility of getting suggested additions included into the DCMIType encoding scheme.

Keitha asked John what AGLS use. John said that they use a single level scheme, for each category (Agency/Service/Document). Keitha noted that John should document this.

Action: Neil to document the reason why NZGLS is not using the same Type

schemes as AGLS.

John also suggested that if this Type scheme was adopted, the three way split of Type (Agency, Service and Document) could be replaced. He noted that theses categories are currently used in Metalogue's business rules.

Action: John to discuss impact assessment of removing three way split of Type (Agency, Service and Document) with EGU.

Text Terms

John told the meeting that these terms were a combination of Government of Canada and UK terms. Derek suggested that these terms are useful for Types other than just text and that the second level vocabulary could be used simply be made available for use if appropriate. Keitha noted that they were potentially useful for document management system encoding schemes.

Action: The members of the NZGLS WG need to provide feedback on Type Category and second level Text terms by 31 March.