The Metadata Workshop was held from March 1 to March 3rd, 1995 in Dublin, OH[DESA3]. It was open "by invitation only" to a number of people actively involved in one or another aspect of the Digital or Virtual Library project, primarily in North America. The intent of the meeting was to try to work towards the definition of a minimum common set of elements for Network Object. The workshop brought together select professionals from computer science, library science, professional librarians, as well as professionals involved in: on-line information services; abstracting, cataloging and indexing; imaging and geospatial data; and museums and archives. The main objective was to address the problem of cataloging network resources with adoption, extension or modification of current standards and protocols to facilitate their discovery and access. A list of participants and their affiliations is given in [DESA3].
The goals of the workshop were: to achieve a consensus on a set of core data elements for document-like objects(DLO); to map these and related elements to accepted standards; and to devise an extension scheme for registering other types of network objects. It was hoped that the workshop, which was preceded by a continuing discussion via a restricted discussion list-server, would promote common understanding of the needs of the various communities being served by the network. The approaches and solutions proposed by these communities, and their strengths and weakness would be recognized in developing a minimum core element set.
In spite of the objective stated in the workshop invitation, many participants had no expectation of coming up with a comprehensive list of data elements. However, there was hope that some categorization and definition of the concept necessary for supplier and user of information would emerge. The other thesis that was repeated in the on-line discussions that preceded the workshop was that in spite of divergence in metadata elements from one catalog to another, there should be a mechanism to provide inter-operability. It was recognized that a metadata element list that would work for everything would be difficult to achieve.
Many participants did recognize the futility of an exhaustive standard and rather wanted to determine a non- exhaustive list of characteristics of network resources and users, as well as the method of their use. It was recognized that the value of information is enhanced if it is represented in an 'application neutral' manner. The same can be said about representing the semantic content of information about information.
Another concern that was expressed was that the core elements should serve as a nucleus for future enhancements. This would be a difficult problem were we to have no idea about future requirements. Another concern raised was the intended use of the metadata. Different usage may impose different constraints and need different sets of core elements. Consequently, the following assumptions were made to develop a consensus to arrive at a minimum set of core data elements.