MWG minutes 2001-02-14 by wuzhenguang


                                  Office of the e-Envoy


Meeting Held           Time: 10.30 – 13.00
                       Date: 20 September 2002
                       Venue: Maple Room, Office of the e-Envoy, Stockley Hse, London

Maewyn Cumming          Cabinet Office – OeE (chair)
Farah Ahmed             Cabinet Office – OeE (notes)
Stella Dextre Clarke    Cabinet Office – OeE consultant
Vanessa Barron          Cabinet Office - OeE
Jonathan Hollow         Cabinet Office - OeE
Berin Gowan             Abbey Information Systems
Peter Cornelissen       APHO
Alastair Souttar        DEFRA
Julie Robinson          DFES
Keith Rose              DTI
John Carlisle           DWP
Paul Tarrant            HMCE
Leila Mottahedeh        HMCE
Belinda Spry            HMCE
David Critchley         HO
Nina Coton              HO
Madonna Grant           HMSO
Cathy Day               Essex County Council
Pat Bell                DTLR
Simon Berlin            LB Lewisham
Michael Warner          MOD
Tim Jones               NHSIA
Neil Pawley             OGC
Tom Wilson              DoH
Judy Jerome             AGI
Catherine Levin         ODPM
Andrew Snowdon          ICL
Sue Smith               ONS
David Carlisle          Environment Agency
Nic Cary                Clarkweiss
Neil Pawley             OGC

                                                            MWG Minutes 2002-09-20
Michelle Sampson       LSC


David Eilbeck (IR), Jo Morris (Essex CC), Kieron Devey (LSC), Jane Foster (GCHQ)

1. Minutes and actions from the last meeting

       1.1 The Thesaurus Working Group has been formed. David Eilbeck is Chair and
           Farah Ahmed is Secretary for the Group (3.5).

       1.2 Stella Dextre Clarke will give the Group the details of this item later in the
           meeting (3.6)

       1.3 The GCL has been updated and is available on GovTalk (5.1)

2. Introductions

       2.1    Farah Ahmed was introduced as the new secretary and first point of contact
              for the Metadata Working Group.

3. Thesaurus Working Group

       3.1    Due to David Eilbeck‟s absence this item could not be discussed in depth.
              Members of the Group were asked to provide feedback on the Terms of
              Reference (distributed at the meeting) of the Thesaurus Working Group.

4. Administrative Thesaurus

       4.1    Due to David Eilbeck‟s absence the progress report was not available for

       4.2    It was agreed that the Thesaurus Working Group (TWG) would take on the
              Administrative Thesaurus work. Maewyn Cumming was aware that this
              was a large task to take on but had confidence in the TWG.

       4.3    Stella Dextre Clarke mentioned that Keyword AAA is starting to be used
              by the PRO on their internal systems and it would be useful to see how they
              are approaching this project with an aim to work with them in the future. It
              was agreed that would be beneficial to all parties if we were to use the
              same terms and structure when developing an administrative thesaurus.
              Depending on how much use is made of Keyword AAA, there could be a
              licence fee and planning should take this into account. Pat Bell
              recommended that a lead should be taken to initiate communication and
              exchange of information with the PRO. Pat stated that the Terms of
              Reference of the Thesaurus Working Group overlapped much of what was
              being discussed at the moment, so it would be wise to incorporate it into

                                                                 MWG Minutes 2002-09-20
           the work of the TWG and set deadlines so that a definite result will be

     4.4   Maewyn Cumming asked for volunteers to take on the work of the
           Administrative Thesaurus, to which there was no response. It was decided
           to give the responsibility of the project to the TWG with deadlines set in
           the Terms of Reference.

5. e-GMS

     5.1   Maewyn Cumming started off by mentioning that „Ask Giraffe‟ has now
           been changed to ‘GIGateway‟. Judy Jerome emphasised that AGI was
           currently refocusing their approach to be more inclusively descriptive of
           what the organisation is supposed to be.

     5.2   Maewyn stated that she has been in talks with the PRO and they have
           edited their metadata standard for electronic records management to make it
           compliant with the e-GMS. This was done on the understanding that the e-
           GMS would need a few additional terms to meet RM needs. Once the PRO
           standard has been consulted on and finalised work on version 2 of the e-
           GMS can continue.

     5.3   Maewyn said that the element „Mandate‟ is currently being used by the
           Australian government. It was initially included in the e-GMS but removed
           before the first version was published. However it is required by internal
           organisations in the UK as it is now seen as quite vital to their work.

     5.4   The PRO felt that „AggregationLevel‟ was central to the way they work and
           that they need it as a separate element instead of just a qualifier. Nina
           Coton questioned its inclusion, as she believed it would cause problems for
           those who are already using it as a qualifier. Tim Jones questioned its
           relationship to the term „Relation.IsPartOf‟. There was some debate over
           how much this element (as well as similar refinements) were being used
           and whether making „AggregationLevel‟ a single element would cause
           much of an impact. Peter Cornelissen mentioned that the term „Derived‟
           was commonly used in the health sector especially as they aggregate
           information at different levels. Maewyn stressed the need for the e-GMS to
           be workable for all concerned and also pointed out that the Dublin Core
           might have some suggestions concerning this element. Action: Members
           to investigate and report back as to whether their organisation is using

     5.5   „Addressee‟ is being used by the PRO for describing a person that an email
           is addressed to, though others might find different uses for it. The Group
           questioned whether it was a refinement of Audience. Maewyn said that it
           was not and it was more focused on a particular person than anything else.
           Michael Warner said that the MoD is currently using the Audience element
           for email recipients. Stella Dextre Clarke questioned which element would
           be easier to implement. Maewyn stated that the PRO originally put this
           element under „Rights‟ and since Rights has been cleaned, and „Addressee

                                                            MWG Minutes 2002-09-20
       does not really belong under Rights anyway, there is a need for a new

5.6    Maewyn bought the term of „Digital Signature‟ to the table. It was
       emphasised that Digital Signature is more an element of „Identifier‟ rather
       than of „Rights‟. Steve Jones agreed by adding that it was more
       authentication based. Maewyn questioned whether or not it was needed as
       a separate element as the technology was still in its infant development,
       bearing in mind the future of the technology looked good. Action: Maewyn
       to investigate this further.

5.7    Maewyn then made a few announcements about geospatial coverage.
       There was a new Pan-Government Agreement with Ordinance Survey (OS)
       for „MasterMap‟, which gave all central government departments the right
       to access the map without being charged individually. Maewyn suggested
       that members should visit the OS site and explore the MasterMap at their
       own leisure. It was suggested that the e-GMS incorporated MasterMap as
       the encoding scheme for the geospatial elements. However the long term
       licensing of this expensive tool would mean access to this in future is not
       guaranteed. Stella Dextre Clarke questioned how the encoding schemes
       would relate to terms used by the user. Maewyn said that ACACIA has
       improved this area, as various organisations such as Consignia, OS and
       Local government have taken their definitive lists and would be putting
       them all together into one authoritative list of street and town names in the
       UK. This too will be using MasterMap as a tool. The Group wondered
       whether or not this list would be free to use. Maewyn said that this was
       being discussed at the moment.

5.8    The Type list has been updated and Maewyn is looking to put it in as an
       appendix. The Group agreed. (For further discussion see point 6.)

5.9    Meawyn went on to mention „Citation‟ refinement for the use in journals.
       The Dublin Core has yet to come to a final conclusion on this matter. The
       use of „JournalID‟ was suggested. Action: Maewyn Cumming to
       investigate the progress of Dublin Core. (Note: The refinement was ratified
       and announced this October at the Dublin Core Conference in Florence.)

5.10   There was a call of caution amongst the members as to the dangers of the e-
       GMS becoming too top heavy and adopting elements that are not necessary
       for the majority of government departments.

5.11   Maewyn Cumming announced that the TSO has been recently appointed as
       the DOI UK agent ( Vanessa Barron confirmed this and
       added that the prototype is being built and will be available next year.
       Vanessa continued by saying that the identifier would be a great help in
       medicine and defence, as well as other areas. Maewyn said that this
       prototype has a great deal of potential, and is currently successfully being
       used in the United States. The notion that the identifier will be persistent
       was expressed, and that it would be one stage up from CD as DOI is ISO.
       Maewyn said that she is hoping to put more information about this into the

                                                        MWG Minutes 2002-09-20
       next version of the e-GMS or as a recommendation. Action: All to give
       feedback on the e-GMS recommendations/amendments document.

5.12   The term „Individual Institutions‟ was talked about by the Group,
       specifically whether this term has actual use and should be considered in
       the next version. Maewyn confirmed that the project „DotP‟ has recently
       added metadata to the system and that „department‟ was one of the

5.13   The Rights refinements had bought about much discussion between
       Maewyn and the PRO. The decision of its inclusion remains open at the
       moment. Maewyn said that if there was not movement in this area then the
       e-GMS would go ahead and possibly include some of the refinements that
       were previously removed.

5.14   The discussion then focussed on „Titles‟ and how it was impossible to
       come across types for the element. Julia Reid said that she was confused
       over the definition of Title in the e-GMS. Maewyn Cumming agreed and
       said that the description will be re-written to be more definite. It was noted
       that the e-GMS must not contradict the Dublin Core definition. It was
       agreed that the „Title.Alternative‟ term should be known as the one
       describing a title that the resource is more commonly known as.

5.15   It was questioned whether the „Age‟ and „Sex‟ would be considered as
       refinements of „Subject‟. Stella Dextre Clarke said that „Age‟ is crucial for
       the audience in education. Peter Cornelissen said that all PHO data is
       specific to age. Julia Reid said that it would be difficult to use as an
       encoding scheme because the data is always changing. Cathy Day said that
       in regards to community sites, ages sometimes do not fit anywhere
       comfortably. Maewyn recommended that the suggested elements could be
       used as an encoding scheme because it is obvious that the members are able
       to find use of it in their work. However she did bring attention to the fact
       that everyone breaks down „Age‟ differently, while „Sex‟ is more clearly

5.16   „Series‟ was confirmed as being the same as „Relation.IsPartOf‟.

5.17   Maewyn Cumming said that the OeE would change the layout of the e-
       GMS to be more readable for the user, but the order of elements would still
       be alphabetical.

5.18   Peter Cornelissen asked about mapping the Subject/GCL to thesauri.
       Meawyn Cumming said that this would be ideal if the system were to use
       an automative machine to tag GCL terms into the Subject element. Stella
       Dextre Clarke said that the Dept of Health have such a mapping tool and
       are already making use of PHITS.

5.19   Peter Cornelissen questioned the Inland Revenue‟s representative as to
       what their priority elements are and how they would order the importance
       of elements for searching. Maewyn Cumming said that this is system based

                                                         MWG Minutes 2002-09-20
             and very individual, and in this case the Inland Revenue has editorial
             judgement. It was agreed that complete human intervention at every stage
             would prove problematic and that it was best left to Web/CMS editorial

      5.20   Cathy Day asked about whether anyone has read John Roberts‟ Service
             Delivery Paper. No members have as yet.

      5.21   The Metadata Survey is currently being rewritten by Farah Ahmed.

6. Future Developments

      6.1    There have been several enquiries about the use of toolkits and their impact
             on compliance. Maewyn suggested that there should be examples on
             GovTalk so that people can have easy access to what is needed. Regarding
             suggesting toolkits to users, Maewyn said that OeE cannot do this, but
             could include a list of available toolkits and reports by anyone who had
             used them. Action: All to investigate what other systems/toolkits are being
             used by each department or organisation.

      6.2    The Group discussed the namespace document (handed out during the
             meeting). The main issue raised was whether the document should be
             renamed to „Syntax‟ to prevent confusion. Action: All to comment on the
             document by the end of October. Plan to upload the document onto
             GovTalk once it has been finalised.

7. Type and Audience

      7.1    Referring to the paper “Proposals for Type Encoding Scheme” that was
             circulated for comment, Stella Dextre Clarke reported that there had been
             little or no dissent on the principles in the recommendations, but several
             respondents had made suggestions for the details of the appendix.

      7.2    Representatives from the DfES asked whether the „Type‟ element was
             repeatable. Maewyn Cumming said that they all were. Catherine Levin
             asked whether the scheme should be increased in size or whether that it was
             too large already. Simon Berlin said that he was happy with the scheme in
             its present state as it specifically responds to the request of local
             government. Many agreed that the scale was about right, also that any
             more than two levels would be out of the question. Cathy Day said that it
             did not apply directly to her work and asked how it would be used in a local
             authority search system. Michael Warner said that the MoD are currently
             using Type templates.

      7.3    Stella Dextre Clarke acknowledged that HMCE have already made
             progress in this area and have followed the Australian example. The
             HMCE have separated Type elements into Service and Document Type.
             HMCE said that the function and information Type mesh with the same
             resources for certain documents and that they are looking to consider this in
             their future plans. Belinda Spry said that the HMCE place documents

                                                              MWG Minutes 2002-09-20
           under a „Type‟ context as all documents have some kind of function to
           express. Stella Dextre Clarke recommended that the group adapt the
           standard way to suit the needs.

     7.4   All proposals were agreed upon. Any further issues regarding Type should
           be directed to Stella Dextre Clarke as soon as possible as the final version
           shall be out in less than two months. There will be room for this scheme to
           develop further after the deadline.

     7.5   The topic then moved to discuss the paper on Audience. Action: All to
           examine and report back on the ways each department/organisation would
           use this element.

     7.6   Stella Dextre Clarke said that the Australian and New Zealand
           governments both use encoding schemes for the element „Audience‟. Stella
           said that there is a Danish version that focuses on Life Events to populate
           the „Audience‟ tag.

     7.7   Stella Dextre Clarke said that the Dublin Core Education Group has been
           investigating „Audience‟ over some years, but so far has not come up with
           an encoding scheme suitable for international use. Within one country and
           one sector, however, an encoding scheme could be very effective. Stella
           asked whether the Group could produce a small and simple list of a high set
           of terms (simpler than the GCL) to be adapted it for their organisation‟s
           use. Nina Coton agreed with the findings of the Dublin Core Education
           Group, suggesting that it would be more appropriate to leave it up to
           individual departments to produce their own categories, tailored to meet
           their own specific requirements. She questioned the feasibility of producing
           a high level list of audience categories that was manageable in size and yet
           at the same time broad enough to meet the core needs of all Departments.
           Action: Members to produce a simple list of a high set of terms to be
           adapted for their organisation‟s use.

8. GCL

     8.1   If anyone would like to be on the GCL consultation mailing list they should
           get in contact with Stella Dextre Clarke.

     8.2   Comments were requested on the format and content of the list of GCL
           changes implemented – too detailed or too brief?

     8.3   The next update will aim to focus on education terms. The education sector
           is being forced to comply with another standard which is quite independent
           of the GCL. Stella Dextre Clarke emphasised the need to plan and adjust
           the two standards so they map conveniently to each other.

     8.4   One user had protested at the inclusion in the GCL of a few entries such as
           “Zoonoses USE Health + Animal health”, which require a capability for
           one-to-many mapping. The next update consultation will include proposals
           for removing all these.

                                                            MWG Minutes 2002-09-20
       8.5    Maewyn Cumming informed the Group that the new GCL section on
              GovTalk solved this problem. Comments are welcome.

       8.6    Maewyn Cumming called for feedback on the new format of the GCL on
              GovTalk. Action: Members to comment on the new format of the GCL.

9. MIReG, Dublin Core – Government update

       9.1    Maewyn Cumming said that she will be attending a MIReG meeting at the
              Dublin Core Conference in Florence. Action: Maewyn will report back to
              the Group on any developments and/or outcomes.

       9.2    Maewyn said that proposed Dublin Core Government extensions have been
              recently announced. Comments are welcome.

10. AOB & Dates of next meetings

       10.1   Maewyn recommended that members start up their own Metadata Working
              Group in their own department unless they have so already. She
              emphasised that information sharing was vital to the work being done here.
              Maewyn also called for a reduction in the number of MWG members,
              aiming to have one per department/organisation and include other members
              in correspondence via email.

       10.2   Dates for next meetings: 12th February 2003 and 11th June 2003. Please
              note that the MWG meeting for December has now been cancelled.

11. Action Points Summary

Ref  Action                                                        Lead
5.4  Investigate and report back as to whether member‟s            Group
     organisation is using „AggregationLevel‟
5.6 Investigate the possible use of the term „Digital Signature‟   Maewyn Cumming
5.9 Investigate the progress of „Citation‟ refinements by the      Maewyn Cumming
     Dublin Core
5.11 Feedback onto the e-GMS recommendations/amendments            Group
6.1 Investigate what other systems/toolkits are being used by      Group
     members‟ department/organisation
6.2 Comment on Syntax document                                     Group
7.7 Members to produce a simple list of a high set of terms to     Group
     be adapted for their organisation‟s use
8.4 Members to comment on the new format of the GCL                Group
9.1 Maewyn will report back to the Group on any                    Maewyn Cumming
     developments and/or outcomes of the MIReG meeting

Farah Ahmed
Office of the e-Envoy

                                                              MWG Minutes 2002-09-20

To top