Dublin Core Metadata for Resource Discovery
A simple 15-element standard set for describing and discovering any kind of resource.
Weibel, S., Kunze, J., Lagoze, C., and M. Wolf, "Dublin Core Metadata for Resource Discovery", RFC 2413, DOI 10.17487/RFC2413, September 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2413>.
@misc{rfc2413,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 2413,
howpublished = {RFC 2413},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC2413},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2413},
author = {S. Weibel and J. Kunze and C. Lagoze and M. Wolf},
title = {{Dublin Core Metadata for Resource Discovery}},
pagetotal = 8,
year = 1998,
month = sep,
} RFC text
Contents
Network Working Group S. Weibel
Request for Comments: 2413 OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
Category: Informational J. Kunze
University of California, San Francisco
C. Lagoze
Cornell University
M. Wolf
Reuters Limited
September 1998
Dublin Core Metadata for Resource Discovery
1. Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
2. Abstract
The Dublin Core Metadata Workshop Series began in 1995 with an
invitational workshop which brought together librarians, digital
library researchers, content experts, and text-markup experts to
promote better discovery standards for electronic resources. The
Dublin Core is a 15-element set of descriptors that has emerged from
this effort in interdisciplinary and international consensus
building. This is the first of a set of Informational RFCs
describing the Dublin Core. Its purpose is to introduce the Dublin
Core and to describe the consensus reached on the semantics of each
of the 15 elements.
3. Introduction
Finding relevant information on the World Wide Web has become
increasingly problematic due to the explosive growth of networked
resources. Current Web indexing evolved rapidly to fill the demand
for resource discovery tools, but that indexing, while useful, is a
poor substitute for richer varieties of resource description.
An invitational workshop held in March of 1995 brought together
librarians, digital library researchers, and text-markup specialists
to address the problem of resource discovery for networked resources.
This activity evolved into a series of related workshops and
ancillary activities that have become known collectively as the
Dublin Core Metadata Workshop Series.
The goals that motivate the Dublin Core effort are:
- Simplicity of creation and maintenance
- Commonly understood semantics
- Conformance to existing and emerging standards
- International scope and applicability
- Extensibility
- Interoperability among collections and indexing systems
These requirements work at cross purposes to some degree, but all are
desirable goals. Much of the effort of the Workshop Series has been
directed at minimizing the tensions among these goals.
One of the primary deliverables of this effort is a set of elements
that are judged by the collective participants of these workshops to
be the core elements for cross-disciplinary resource discovery. The
term "Dublin Core" applies to this core of descriptive elements.
Early experience with Dublin Core deployment has made clear the need
to support qualification of elements for some applications. Thus, a
Dublin Core element may be expressed without qualification (as
described in this RFC) or with qualifiers that refine its semantics
(the subject of future RFCs). For the sake of interoperability,
simple indexing and discovery tools should be able to ignore any
qualifiers provided, while more advanced, semantically richer tools
should be able to use qualifiers to support more specialized or
precise discovery.
The broad agreements about syntax and semantics that have emerged
from the workshop series will be expressed in a series of
Informational RFCs, of which this document is the first.
4. Description of Dublin Core Elements
The following is the reference definition of the Dublin Core Metadata
Element Set. Further information about the Dublin Core Metadata
Element Set is available at [1]:
http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core
In the element descriptions below, each element has a descriptive
name intended to convey a common semantic understanding of the
element, as well as a formal single-word label intended to make the
syntactic specification of elements simpler for encoding schemes.
Although some environments, such as HTML, are not case-sensitive, it
is recommended best practice always to adhere to the case conventions
in the element labels given below to avoid conflicts in the event
that the metadata is subsequently extracted or converted to a case-
sensitive environment, such as XML (Extensible Markup Language) [2].
Each element is optional and repeatable. Metadata elements may
appear in any order. The ordering of multiple occurrences of the
same element (e.g., Creator) may have a significance intended by the
provider, but ordering is not guaranteed to be preserved in every
system.
To promote global interoperability, a number of the element
descriptions suggest a controlled vocabulary for the respective
element values. It is assumed that other controlled vocabularies
will be developed for interoperability within certain local domains.
The metadata elements fall into three groups which roughly indicate
the class or scope of information stored in them: (1) elements
related mainly to the Content of the resource, (2) elements related
mainly to the resource when viewed as Intellectual Property, and (3)
elements related mainly to the Instantiation of the resource.
Content Intellectual Property Instantiation
----------- --------------------- -------------
Title Creator Date
Subject Publisher Format
Description Contributor Identifier
Type Rights Language
Source
Relation
Coverage
4.1. Title Label: "Title"
The name given to the resource, usually by the Creator or Publisher.
4.2. Author or Creator Label: "Creator"
The person or organization primarily responsible for creating the
intellectual content of the resource. For example, authors in the
case of written documents, artists, photographers, or illustrators in
the case of visual resources.
4.3. Subject and Keywords Label: "Subject"
The topic of the resource. Typically, subject will be expressed as
keywords or phrases that describe the subject or content of the
resource. The use of controlled vocabularies and formal
classification schemes is encouraged.
4.4. Description Label: "Description"
A textual description of the content of the resource, including
abstracts in the case of document-like objects or content
descriptions in the case of visual resources.
4.5. Publisher Label: "Publisher"
The entity responsible for making the resource available in its
present form, such as a publishing house, a university department, or
a corporate entity.
4.6. Other Contributor Label: "Contributor"
A person or organization not specified in a Creator element who has
made significant intellectual contributions to the resource but whose
contribution is secondary to any person or organization specified in
a Creator element (for example, editor, transcriber, and
illustrator).
4.7. Date Label: "Date"
A date associated with the creation or availability of the resource.
Recommended best practice is defined in a profile of ISO 8601 [3]
that includes (among others) dates of the forms YYYY and YYYY-MM-DD.
In this scheme, for example, the date 1994-11-05 corresponds to
November 5, 1994.
4.8. Resource Type Label: "Type"
The category of the resource, such as home page, novel, poem, working
paper, technical report, essay, dictionary. For the sake of
interoperability, Type should be selected from an enumerated list
that is currently under development in the workshop series.
4.9. Format Label: "Format"
The data format and, optionally, dimensions (e.g., size, duration) of
the resource. The format is used to identify the software and
possibly hardware that might be needed to display or operate the
resource. For the sake of interoperability, the format should be
selected from an enumerated list that is currently under development
in the workshop series.
4.10. Resource Identifier Label: "Identifier"
A string or number used to uniquely identify the resource. Examples
for networked resources include URLs and URNs (when implemented).
Other globally-unique identifiers, such as International Standard
Book Numbers (ISBN) or other formal names are also candidates for
this element.
4.11. Source Label: "Source"
Information about a second resource from which the present resource
is derived. While it is generally recommended that elements contain
information about the present resource only, this element may contain
metadata for the second resource when it is considered important for
discovery of the present resource.
4.12. Language Label: "Language"
The language of the intellectual content of the resource.
Recommended best practice is defined in RFC 1766 [4].
4.13. Relation Label: "Relation"
An identifier of a second resource and its relationship to the
present resource. This element is used to express linkages among
related resources. For the sake of interoperability, relationships
should be selected from an enumerated list that is currently under
development in the workshop series.
4.14. Coverage Label: "Coverage"
The spatial or temporal characteristics of the intellectual content
of the resource. Spatial coverage refers to a physical region (e.g.,
celestial sector) using place names or coordinates (e.g., longitude
and latitude). Temporal coverage refers to what the resource is
about rather than when it was created or made available (the latter
belonging in the Date element). Temporal coverage is typically
specified using named time periods (e.g., neolithic) or the same
date/time format [3] as recommended for the Date element.
4.15. Rights Management Label: "Rights"
A rights management statement, an identifier that links to a rights
management statement, or an identifier that links to a service
providing information about rights management for the resource.
5. Security Considerations
The Dublin Core element set poses no risk to computers and networks.
It poses minimal risk to searchers who obtain incorrect or private
information due to careless mapping from rich data descriptions to
the simple Dublin Core scheme. No other security concerns are likely
to be raised by the element description consensus documented here.
6. References
[1] Further information about the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set,
http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core
[2] Extensible Markup Language (XML), http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml
[3] Date and Time Formats (based on ISO 8601), W3C Technical Note,
http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime
[4] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of Languages", RFC
1766, March 1995.
7. Authors' Addresses
Stuart L. Weibel
OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
Office of Research
6565 Frantz Rd.
Dublin, Ohio, 43017, USA
Phone: +1 614-764-6081
Fax: +1 614-764-2344
EMail: weibel@oclc.org
John A. Kunze
Center for Knowledge Management
University of California, San Francisco
530 Parnassus Ave, Box 0840
San Francisco, CA 94143-0840, USA
Phone: +1 510-525-8575
Fax: +1 415-476-4653
EMail: jak@ckm.ucsf.edu
Carl Lagoze
University Library and Department of Computer Science
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
Phone: +1 607-255-6046
Fax: +1 607-255-4428
EMail: lagoze@cs.cornell.edu
Misha Wolf
Reuters Limited
85 Fleet Street
London EC4P 4AJ, UK
Phone: +44 171-542-6722
Fax: +44 171-542-8314
EMail: misha.wolf@reuters.com
8. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
AI ELI5
On this page
§1The Dublin Core Metadata Standard
RFC 2413 documents the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, a small set of 15 resource descriptors designed to promote better discovery of electronic resources. The Dublin Core emerged from a series of invitational workshops that began in 1995, bringing together librarians, digital library researchers, and markup experts to establish common semantics for resource description.
The problem being solved was fundamental: as the World Wide Web grew rapidly, full-text indexing became the primary discovery tool, but it was a poor substitute for structured resource description. The Dublin Core provides a minimal, internationally applicable set of elements that can be understood and used across disciplines, systems, and organizations, balancing simplicity with expressiveness.
As more stuff appeared on the web, people needed a simple way to describe things so they could find them. Dublin Core gives 15 standard labels that anyone can use, no matter what the resource is.
§2Design Principles and Scope
The Dublin Core workshops prioritized six key design goals: simplicity of creation and maintenance, commonly understood semantics, conformance to existing standards, international scope and applicability, extensibility, and interoperability among collections and indexing systems. These goals often work at cross purposes, so much of the workshop effort focused on minimizing tensions among them.
Each Dublin Core element is optional and repeatable, may appear in any order, and can appear with qualifiers that refine its semantics (a subject of future RFCs). Simple indexing tools should be able to ignore qualifiers and still provide basic discovery, while advanced tools can use them for more precise searches. The RFC also recommends adopting case conventions for element labels to support conversion to case-sensitive environments like XML.
The Dublin Core keeps things simple so anyone can use it, but it is also flexible so more advanced systems can use it in fancy ways. Each element is like a label you can add as many times as you need.
§3The 15 Metadata Elements
The Dublin Core organizes its 15 elements into three groups based on the kind of information they hold. Content elements describe what the resource is about: Title (the name given to the resource), Subject (topic expressed as keywords or phrases), Description (textual summary or abstract), Type (category such as homepage or technical report), Source (information about a resource from which the present resource is derived), Relation (identifiers of related resources), and Coverage (spatial or temporal characteristics).
Intellectual Property elements identify the creators and rights holders: Creator (person or organization responsible for intellectual content), Publisher (entity making the resource available), Contributor (secondary intellectual contributors), and Rights (rights management statement or link). Instantiation elements describe the physical or technical manifestation: Date (creation or availability date in ISO 8601 format), Format (data format and dimensions, identifying software or hardware needed), Identifier (URL, URN, ISBN, or other globally unique identifier), and Language (language of the intellectual content, using RFC 1766 tags).
The 15 elements fall into three groups: what it is (Title, Subject, Description), who made it (Creator, Publisher), and how to get it (Date, Format, Language). Each element answers a simple question about the resource.
- ContentTitle, Subject, Description, Type, Source, Relation, Coverage
- Intellectual PropertyCreator, Publisher, Contributor, Rights
- InstantiationDate, Format, Identifier, Language
§4Element Semantics and Controlled Vocabularies
Each Dublin Core element has a descriptive name conveying common semantic understanding and a formal single-word label (such as Creator or Rights) for syntactic specification. The RFC recommends controlled vocabularies for several elements to support interoperability. For example, Type should be selected from an enumerated list under development, Format should come from a developing interoperability list, and Relation values should be drawn from an enumerated list of relationship types.
The Date element recommends a profile of ISO 8601 that includes dates in YYYY or YYYY-MM-DD format (for example, 1994-11-05 for November 5, 1994). Language uses RFC 1766 tags. Coverage allows both spatial references (place names or coordinates) and temporal coverage (named periods like 'neolithic' or date/time ranges), though temporal coverage refers to what the resource is about rather than when it was created. Subject and Description elements are intentionally flexible to support keywords, formal classification schemes, and varying levels of detail across domains.
Each element has a specific meaning. Some have recommended formats (like dates), and some have lists of standard values (like resource types). This helps different systems understand the metadata the same way.
§5Interoperability and Security
The Dublin Core is designed for maximum interoperability. Metadata elements may be expressed without qualification (as in this RFC) or with refinements (the subject of future RFCs). The key principle is that simple systems ignoring qualifiers can still discover and understand resources, while sophisticated systems can leverage qualified metadata for more precise retrieval. This approach supports both basic discovery and advanced search within the same standard.
From a security perspective, the Dublin Core element set itself poses no direct risk to computers or networks. However, there is a minimal risk that searchers may obtain incorrect or private information due to careless mapping from rich metadata to the simple 15-element scheme. Organizations using Dublin Core should be aware that element descriptions are intentionally broad to support global interoperability; precise semantics within specific domains should be established through local agreement or community profiles.
Dublin Core is safe to use because it is just labels describing things. The main thing to watch is that simple systems might not understand nuances in the metadata, so sometimes search results might not be perfect.