Hello everybody, based on the previous thread on dc.type metadata fields, I am personally interested in how you deal with type extensions in practice for your institution.
I have seen recommendations to collect both a document type based on the DCMI Type vocabulary as well as a publication type, which is e.g. based on a DINI recommendation. Documents such as https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/2144/12.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y suggest to do something like <dc:type xsi:type="dini:PublType">preprint</dc:type> <dc:type xsi:type="dcterms:DCMIType">Text</dc:type>. but can I actually configure this somehow in DSpace input-forms.xml so that DSpace adds the additional xsi:type attribute? I saw that some other institutions simply introduce a custom vocabulary extension such as dc.publishingtype or dc.type.publish. This feels strange as we already have a standardized vocabulary, so is there no better way? This would also apply to other meta data information. Let's say, we do not only have an advisor for a dissertation represented in the qualifier dc.contributor.advisor. But also a referee. Is it vald to simply add a dc.contributor.referee to the metadata scheme or is this bad practice? Thanks for your insights André -- All messages to this mailing list should adhere to the DuraSpace Code of Conduct: https://duraspace.org/about/policies/code-of-conduct/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DSpace Technical Support" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dspace-tech/6bcecbd4-0ba8-4d14-b552-187de700620a%40googlegroups.com.
