I’m helping to develop a metadata standard for our data providers supplying image data. For this we’re drawing on various existing metadata elements within the embedded image metadata in order to follow established practice and therefore allow us (and others) to then harvest the embedded metadata to then feed through to our cataloging and onwards DOI minting etc.
We’ve been looking at relationType code list within the Dublin Core relation element which has some similarities to the relationType element within the Datacite schema… however, this also leads to two questions that I’m hoping some here may be able to help with:
- Is the Datacite controlled vocab used for relationType drawn from anywhere else? (I’ve not been able to track down if this is the case or not myself having searched around for this). If not, what is the governance for this code list?
- Comparing the code list entries in the schema doc, and items elsewhere in the doc where the types are mentioned (e.g. additions added), with the mentioned on the PID Forum and then comparing against the relationTypes seen within DublinCore, I see that there is inconsistency on the casing of the relationTypes - e.g. IsBasedOn vs isBasedOn . Which casing should be used?
Ideally, the casing should be consitent with DublinCore, especially if the code list elements held in common (e.g. isPartOf, isBasedOn) have common definitions and therefore aid interoperability between the two code lists? (Which sort of links back to question 1… is it that “Datacite relationType code list isBasedOn DublinCore relationType code list”? )
Looking around on similar threads I can see @KellyStathis has added some useful comments generally about the use of relationType within Datacite metadata, e.g. on How are you using DataCite relationTypes? - #8 by amyhodge