PRISM Home » PRISM's Progress » Spec v1.0b

Abstract

The Publishing Requirements for Industry Standard Metadata (PRISM) specification is a standard for content description, interchange, and reuse in both traditional and electronic publishing contexts. PRISM defines an extensible, RDF-compliant metadata framework, a rich set of descriptive elements, and vocabularies for the values of those elements.

The PRISM working group, a joint effort of representatives from publishers and vendors in an initiative hosted by IDEAlliance, prepared this specification. Comments for the working group may be sent to prism@idealliance.org.

Status

This document is the second public draft of the PRISM specification. The entire document is subject to change without notice.

Acknowledgements

A number of sections were drawn from the XMLNews tutorials and specifications. The working group thanks David Megginson for his permission to use that material.

Working Group Members

Editors

Deren Hansen - Cogito, inc. (Formerly of WAVO corporation)
Cameron Pope (Invited Expert) - The Aboutbox, Inc.

Working Group Members

Donald Alameda - Sothebys.com (Integrated Automata)
Anna Bjarnestam - Getty Images
Linda Burman - Kinecta, Inc. (co-chair and Working Group Founder)
Ron Daniel - Metacode Technologies (co-chair)
Ari Davidow - ITWorld.com (IDG Publications)
Charlie   Evett - MarketSoft
Lisa Frumkes - Getty Images
Chris Green - Time Inc.
Deren Hansen - Cogito, Inc.
Brad Husick - Vignette Corporation
Dianna Husum - Adobe Systems, Inc.
Paul Kramer - Condé Nast Publications
Roger Medlin - Artesia Technologies, Inc.
Glen Ochsenreiter - iCopyright.com
Cameron Pope (Invited Expert) - The Aboutbox, Inc. (Formerly of Quark, inc.)
Laird Popkin - Sothebys.com
Howie Rafal - Banta New Media, Inc.
Jay Rothchild - eLogic, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cahners Business Information)
Justin Scroggs - Time Inc.
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1  Introduction

1.1  Purpose and Scope
   1.2  Relationship to Other Specifications

1.2.1  XML
   1.2.2  Resource Description Framework (RDF)
   1.2.3  Dublin Core (DC)
   1.2.4  NewsML
   1.2.5  News Industry Text Format (NITF)
   1.2.6  Information and Content Exchange (ICE)
   1.2.7 eXtensible Rights Markup Language (XrML)

   1.3  Additional Issues
   

1.3.1  Redundancy
   1.3.2  Exchange Mechanisms
   1.3.3  Security
   1.3.4  Rights Enforcement
   1.3.5  Behavior of PRISM-compliant Software
   1.3.6  PRISM MIME Type
   1.3.7  Automatic Creation of Inverse Relations

   1.4  Definitions
   1.5  Requirement Wording Note
   1.6  Structure of this Document

2  Overview

2.1  Travel Content Syndication Scenario
   2.2  Basic Metadata
   2.3  Controlled Vocabularies
   2.4  Relations
   2.5  Resource Type and Category
   2.6  Rights
   2.7  Example – Photo with no restrictions

3  Framework

3.1  Identifiers
   3.2  PRISM Profile of the Resource Description Framework    

3.2.1  Constraint 1: Top-level structure of Descriptions
   3.2.2  Constraint 2: rdf:aboutEachPrefix disallowed
   3.2.3  Constraint 3: Element/Attribute equivalence abbreviations disallowed
   3.2.4  Constraint 4: rdf:parseType="Resource" disallowed
   3.2.5  Further Qualifications
   3.2.6  Conventions for Property Values
   3.2.7  Convention 1: In-line source vocabulary term definitions preferred?

   3.3  Semantics of Rights and Permissions    

3.3.1  Uses, Rights and Restrictions
   3.3.2  General Semantics
   3.3.3  Simplified Semantics

4  Namespaces and Functional Groups

4.1  Namespaces
   4.2  Functional Groups of PRISM and DC Elements    

4.2.1  Resource Descriptors
   4.2.2  Provenance
   4.2.3  Timestamps
   4.2.4  Subject Description
   4.2.5  Resource Relationships
   4.2.6  Rights and Permissions

   4.3  PRISM Source Vocabulary    

4.3.1  Example – Citing Source Vocabularies

   4.4  PRISM In-line Markup

5  Element Definitions

5.1  Aliases
   5.2  Dublin Core Element Definitions
   

5.2.1  dc:contributor
   5.2.2  dc:coverage
   5.2.3  dc:creator
   5.2.4  dc:date
   5.2.5  dc:description
   5.2.6  dc:format
   5.2.7  dc:identifier
   5.2.8  dc:language
   5.2.9  dc:publisher
   5.2.10  dc:relation
   5.2.11  dc:rights
   5.2.12  dc:source
   5.2.13  dc:subject
   5.2.14  dc:title
   5.2.15  dc:type

   5.3  PRISM Element Definitions    

5.3.1  prism:allowedUse
   5.3.2  prism:category
   5.3.3  prism:creationTime
   5.3.4  prism:contentCopyrightHolder
   5.3.5  prism:copyright
   5.3.6  prism:distributor
   5.3.7  prism:expireTime
   5.3.8  prism:hasAlternative
   5.3.9  prism:hasCorrection
   5.3.10  prism:hasFormat
   5.3.11  prism:hasPart
   5.3.12  prism:hasVersion
   5.3.13  prism:isAlternativeFor
   5.3.14  prism:isBasedOn
   5.3.15  prism:isBasisFor
   5.3.16  prism:isCorrectionOf
   5.3.17  prism:isExclusive
   5.3.18  prism:isFormatOf
   5.3.19  prism:isForReuse
   5.3.20  prism:isPartOf
   5.3.21  prism:isReferencedBy
   5.3.22  prism:isRequiredBy
   5.3.23  prism:isVersionOf
   5.3.24  prism:modifyTime
   5.3.25  prism:preference
   5.3.26  prism:providerType
   5.3.27  prism:publicationTime
   5.3.28  prism:receivedTime
   5.3.29  prism:references
   5.3.30  prism:releaseTime
   5.3.31  prism:requires
   5.3.32  prism:restrictedUse
   5.3.33  prism:right
   5.3.34  prism:rightsHolder
   5.3.35  prism:rightsName
   5.3.36  prism:subjectCreator
   5.3.37  prism:subjectEvent
   5.3.38  prism:subjectIndustry
   5.3.39  prism:subjectLocation
   5.3.40  prism:subjectOrg
   5.3.41  prism:subjectPerson
   5.3.42  prism:subjectURL
   5.3.43  prism:TimeFrom
   5.3.44  prism:TimeUntil
   5.3.45  prism:TimeMoment
   5.3.46  prism:timeUnits
   5.3.47  prism:usage
   5.3.48  prism:usageType
   5.3.49  prism:use

   5.4  PRISM Inline Markup Element Definitions    

5.4.1  pim:location
   5.4.2  pim:objectTitle
   5.4.3  pim:org
   5.4.4  pim:person
   5.4.5  pim:quote

   5.5  PRISM Source Vocabulary Element Definitions    

5.5.1  psv:broaderTerm
   5.5.2  psv:code
   5.5.3  psv:definition
   5.5.4  psv:label
   5.5.5  psv:narrowerTerm
   5.5.6  psv:relatedTerm
   5.5.7  psv:synonym
   5.5.8  psv:vocabulary

6  Controlled Vocabularies

6.1  Resource Role Vocabularies    

6.1.1  Resource Type
   6.1.2  Resource Category

   6.2  Rights Property Values
   6.3  Usage Property Values
   6.4  Provider Property Values

7  References

top      

1  Introduction

1.1  Purpose and Scope

The Publishing Requirements for Industry Standard Metadata (PRISM) specification defines an XML metadata vocabulary for syndicating, aggregating, post-processing and multi-purposing magazine, news, catalog, book, and mainstream journal content. PRISM provides a framework for the interchange and preservation of content and metadata, a collection of elements to describe that content, and a set of controlled vocabularies listing the values for those elements.

The working group focused on metadata for:

• General-purpose description of resources as a whole;

• Specification of a resource's relationships to other resources;

• Definition of intellectual property rights and permissions;

• Expressing inline metadata (that is, markup within the resource itself).

Like the ICE protocol, PRISM is designed be straightforward to use over the Internet, support a wide variety of applications, not constrain data formats of the resources being described, conform to a specific XML syntax, and be constrained to practical and implementable mechanisms.

1.2  Relationship to Other Specifications

1.2.1  XML

PRISM metadata documents are an application of XML [W3C-XML]. Basic concepts in PRISM are represented using the element/attribute markup model of XML.

1.2.2  Resource Description Framework (RDF)

The Resource Description Framework [W3C-RDF] defines a model and XML syntax to represent and transport metadata. PRISM uses a simplified profile of RDF for its metadata framework. Thus, PRISM compliant applications will generate metadata that can be processed by RDF processing applications. However, the converse is not necessarily true. The behavior of applications processing input that does not conform to this specification is not defined.

1.2.3 Dublin Core

The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative [DCMI] established a set of metadata to describe electronic resources in a manner similar to a library card catalog. The Dublin Core includes 15 general elements designed to characterize resources. PRISM uses the Dublin Core and its relation types as the foundation for its metadata.  PRISM defines some controlled values and recommendes practices for using the Dublin Core vocabulary.

1.2.4 NewsML

NewsML [IPTC-NEWSML] is an emerging standard from the International Press Telecommunications Council (IPTC) aimed at the transmission of news stories and the automation of newswire services. PRISM focuses on describing content and how it may be reused. While there is some overlap between the two standards, PRISM and NewsML are largely complimentary. PRISM’s controlled vocabularies have been specified in such a way that they can be used in NewsML. The PRISM working group and the IPTC are working together to investigate a common format and metadata vocabulary to satisfy the needs of the members of both organizations.

1.2.5  News Industry Text Format (NITF)

NITF [IPTC-NITF] is another IPTC specification. NITF provides a DTD designed to mark up news stories.  PRISM is a metadata vocabulary designed to describe resources and their relationship to other resources.  Although NITF has some elements to specify metadata and header information that are duplicated in PRISM, the two standards are largely complimentary.

1.2.6  Information and Content Exchange (ICE)

The Information and Content Exchange [ICE] protocol manages and automates  syndication relationships, data transfer, and results analysis. PRISM compliments ICE by providing an industry-standard vocabulary to automate content reuse and syndication processes. To quote from the ICE specification:

Reusing and redistributing information and content from one Web   site to another is an ad hoc and expensive process. The expense derives from   two different types of problem:   

    
• Before successfully sharing and reusing information, both ends need a     common vocabulary.
    
• Before successfully transferring any data and managing the     relationship, both ends need a common protocol and management model.
    

Successful content syndication requires solving both halves of   this puzzle.

Thus, there is a natural synergy between ICE and PRISM: ICE provides the protocol for syndication processes and PRISM provides a description of the resource being syndicated.

1.2.7 eXtensible Rights Markup Language (XrML)

XrML [XRML] is a standard developed by ContentGuard, Inc. which specifies the behavior of trusted digital rights management systems and repositories. PRISM describes the terms and conditions under which people may reuse content, but does not discuss the behavior of trusted repositories or specify how an application out to enforce these rights and permissions. The treatment of derivative use rights in PRISM is complimentary but separate from the rights and uses that are specified in XrML.

1.3  Additional Issues

1.3.1.  Redundancy

Redundancy is a necessary consequence of re-using existing work. For example, when sending PRISM data in an ICE payload, there will be duplication of PRISM timestamp information and ICE header data. Therefore, in some cases, the same information will be specified more than one place. The working group decided that redundancy should neither be encouraged nor avoided.

1.3.2.  Exchange Mechanisms

PRISM does not impose any exchange mechanism. The information needed to locate and use the binary is contained in the PRISM stream. Where appropriate, the policies of the protocol used to deliver the PRISM information should be used to also deliver the content. The mechanisms used for processing binaries should consider the following factors:

• Easily separate content. A tool that provides metadata will need to get at this information quickly. If metadata is mixed with content, these tools will have to always scan through the binary data.

• Reference vs. Inline content. Referencing content is visually clean, but presents a challenge with access (security, stale links, etc). Inline requires larger data streams.

• Encoding. Depending on the choice of format, encoding of the content may be necessary. This is not a big deal, but may require some extra computation.

The working group is currently debating interchange syntax options. Issues include how to encapsulate in-line binary data, MIME vs. XML exchange mechanisms (e.g., SOAP), and the significance of other approaches such as NewsML and ICE. The working group explicitly requests feedback on exchange mechanisms.

1.3.3  Security

The PRISM specification  does not address security issues. The working group decided that the metadata descriptions could be secured by whatever security provisions might be applied to the resource(s) being described. PRISM implementations can achieve necessary security using a variety of methods, including:

  
• Encryption at the transport level, e.g., via SSL, PGP, or   S/MIME.
  
• Sending digitally signed content as items within the PRISM interchange   format, with verification performed at the application level (above PRISM).   

1.3.4  Rights Enforcement

The PRISM specification does not address the issue of rights enforcement mechanisms. While PRISM could be used to describe resources whose usage must be controlled, the working group felt that the most common scenarios involved parties in a contractual relationship. Given that several firms already offer rights enforcement systems, the working group determined that rights enforcement was beyond the scope of this specification.

1.3.5  Behavior of PRISM-compliant Software

The working group was not willing to constrain the behavior of PRISM-compliant applications, but did want to emphasize the following:

• Discarding metadata is discouraged but not forbidden.

• Adding novel elements to the metadata vocabulary is discouraged but not forbidden.

1.3.6  PRISM MIME Type

The working group determined that the PRISM MIME type will be: application/prism+rdf+xml.

1.3.7  Automatic Creation of Inverse Relations

PRISM relationship metadata is comprised of a number of paired elements (e.g., prism:isVersionOf and prism:hasVersion). While the working group recommends that relationships always exist as pairs, it was not willing to requiring PRISM-compliant system to maintain canonical relationships.

The following terms and phrases are used throughout this document in the sense listed below. Readers will most likely not fully understand these definitions without also reading through the specification.

1.4 Definitions

Authority File

One of the forms of a controlled vocabulary, in which a list of   uniquely identified entities, such as companies, authors, or customers, is   maintained over time.

Content

Content, as it is used in the PRISM specification is a   non-normative term assumed to be a resource or a collection of resources.

Content Provider

A publisher, business, portal site, person or entity making   content available in any medium.

  

Controlled Vocabulary

A list of terms with a defined maintenance procedure and   restricted update access. There are two major types of controlled vocabularies  - authority files and taxonomies.

Metadata

Information about a resource. In this specification, metadata is   expressed as one or more properties

  

Property

A field with a defined meaning used to describe a resource. A   property plus the value of that property for a specific resource is a   statement about that resource. [W3C-RDF]

Resource

Text, graphics, sound, video or anything else that can be   identified with a URI or other identification scheme. The PRISM specification   uses this term because it is not used in casual writing, so it can be used   unambiguously in the PRISM specification.

1.5  Requirement Wording Note

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. The PRISM specification also adds the normative term, "STRONGLY ENCOURAGES," which should be understood as a requirement comparable to MUST in all but the most extraordinary circumstances.

Capitalization is significant; lower-case uses of the key words are intended to be interpreted in their normal, informal, English language way.

1.6  Structure of this Document

Section 1 provides an introduction and establishes some of the context for the PRISM specification. Only Section 1.5 "Requirement Wording Note" is normative.

Section 2 provides a non-normative overview of the major portions of the spec, using a series of examples to illustrate a scenario.

Section 3 describes PRISM's framework for identifiers, RDF application, and constructing statements of rights.

Section 4 Gives a summary of element namespaces and functional groups into which those elements fall in PRISM.

Section 5 gives detailed definitions of the elements that PRISM defines or specifies.

Section 6 describes vocabularies that PRISM uses as controlled values for various properties.

Section 7 lists material cited in the specification.

top      

2  Overview

This section provides a quick, non-normative overview of the PRISM specification and the types of problems that it addresses.

This section introduces the core concepts and many of the elements present in the PRISM specification by starting with a basic document with Dublin Core metadata, then using PRISM metadata elements to create a richer description of the article. Although the PRISM specification contains a large number of elements and controlled vocabulary terms, most of them are optional, so it is not necessary to put forth a large amount of effort to apply metadata to every resource, although it is possible to apply very rich metadata to resources that are targeted for reuse.

2.1  Travel Content Syndication Scenario

Wanderlust, a major travel publication forms a business relationship with travelmongo.com, a travel portal. After Wanderlust goes to press, they syndicate all of their articles and sidebars to their content partners like travelmongo.com. Like many other publications, Wanderlust does not have the right to resell all of their images.

When Wanderlust creates syndication offers, an automated script searches through the metadata for the issues's content to ensure that anything that cannot be syndicated is removed from the syndication offer with alternatives substituted when possible. Since Wanderlust tags their content with rights information in a standard way, this process happens automatically using off-the-shelf software.

Because Wanderlust includes standard descriptive information about people, products, places and rights when they syndicate their content, travelmongo.com can populate their content management system with all the appropriate data so that the articles can be properly classified and indexed. This reduces the cost to travelmongo.com of subscribing to third-party content and makes content from Wanderlust even more valuable for them.

2.2  Basic Metadata

The elements in the Dublin Core form the basis for PRISM's metadata vocabulary. This minimal PRISM document uses some Dublin Core elements to describe a photo taken on the island of Corfu:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/1.0#"
         xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
         xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1#">
   <rdf:Description rdf:about=
      "http://wanderlust.com/2000/08/CorfuBeach.jpg">
      <dc:identifier rdf:resource="wanderlust:2357845" />
      <dc:description>Photograph taken at 6:00 
         am on Corfu with two models</dc:description>
      <dc:title>Walking on the Beach in Corfu</dc:title>
      <dc:creator>John Photographer</dc:creator>
      <dc:contributor>Sally Smith, lighting</dc:contributor>
      <dc:format>image/jpeg</dc:format>
   </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

PRISM requires that resources have unique identifiers. In the above example, the photo is identified by a URL in the rdf:about attribute of the rdf:description element. The dc:identifier element can be used for other identifiers, such as ISBN numbers or system-specific identifiers. In the above example, the dc:identifier element contains an asset ID for Wanderlust's asset management system.

PRISM follows the case convention adopted in the RDF specification. All elements, attributes and attribute values begin with an initial lower case letter and subsequent words are capitalized. PRISM uses the convention of placing property values that are expressed as URIs, such as dc:identifier in the above example, in an rdf:resource attribute, and prose or non-URI values as element content, as seen in the dc:description element. This allows automated systems to easily determine when a property value is a URI.

2.3  Controlled Vocabularies

Property values in PRISM can come from controlled vocabularies. Controlled vocabularies are an important extensibility mechanism. Defining additional vocabularies for specialized uses is a way to extend descriptive power without resorting to prose explanations, adding additional elements and breaking the behavior of general-case tools. Controlled vocabularies are also necessary for automatically processing information.

PRISM specifies controlled vocabularies for some elements. Other elements will use controlled vocabularies created and maintained by third parties, such as the International Standards Organization (ISO).

With this travel photo, it is important to unambiguously note the location it was taken for future reference. Adding that this photo was taken in Greece, using ISO country codes, can be done as follows:

   <rdf:Description rdf:about=
      "http://wanderlust.com/2000/08/CorfuBeach.jpg">
      <dc:identifier rdf:resource="wanderlust:2357845" />
      ...
      <dc:coverage rdf:resource="iso3166-2:gr" />
   </rdf:Description>

2.4  Relations

It is often necessary to describe how a number of resources are related. For example, an image can be part of a magazine article. PRISM defines a number of elements to express relations between resources, so describing that this image is contained in a magazine article can be done as follows:

   <rdf:Description rdf:about=
      "http://wanderlust.com/2000/08/CorfuBeach.jpg">
      <dc:identifier rdf:resource="wanderlust:2357845" />
      ...
      <dc:coverage rdf:resource="iso3166-2:gr" />
      <prism:isPartOf rdf:resource=
         "http://wanderlust.com/2000/08/CorfuArticle.xml" />
   </rdf:Description>

2.5  Resource Type and Category

Many different kinds of information are frequently lumped together as information about the 'type' of a resource. The PRISM specification breaks out three components:

• First, data types are indicated through the use of Internet Media Types   (e.g. MIME types) in the dc:format element.
• Information on the stereotypical type of intellectual content, such as   obituaries vs. election results, is indicated through the use of the prism:category element   and the controlled vocabulary of resource categories.
• Finally, the type of presentation is indicated by the dc:type element and the   controlled vocabulary of roles.

For example, take three different images, a photo, an illustration and a graph. All three are images, and could be conveyed as gif files, so the dc:format element for all three images will contain image/gif. However, the dc:type element for the three would be different, referring to the controlled vocabulary terms for photo, illustration and graph, respectively. This distinction is useful for searching and selecting content for reuse.

<rdf:RDF xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/1.0#"
         xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
       xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1#">
   <rdf:Description rdf:about=
      "http://wanderlust.com/2000/08/CorfuBeach.jpg">
     <dc:identifier rdf:resource="wanderlust:2357845" />
     <dc:description>Photograph taken at 6:00 am on 
        Corfu with two models</dc:description>
      <dc:title>Walking on the Beach in Corfu</dc:title>
      <dc:creator>John Photographer</dc:creator>
      <dc:contributor>Sally Smith, lighting</dc:contributor>
      <dc:format>image/jpeg</dc:format>
     <dc:type rdf:resource=
         "http://prismstandard.org/1.0/resourcetypes.xml#photo" />
      <dc:coverage rdf:resource="iso3166-2:gr" />
     <prism:isPartOf rdf:resource=
        "http://wanderlust.com/2000/08/CorfuArticle.xml" />
   </rdf:Description>

   <rdf:Description rdf:about=
      "http://wanderlust.com/2000/08/CorfuSidebar.xml">
      <dc:identifier rdf:resource="wanderlust:2357846" />
      <dc:description>Accomodations and sights on
        Corfu</dc:description>
      <dc:format>text/xml</dc:format>
     <dc:type rdf:resource=
         "http://prismstandard.org/1.0/resourcetypes.xml#sidebar" />
      <prism:category rdf:resource=
         "http://prismstandard.org/1.0/category.xml#review" />
      <prism:isPartOf rdf:resource=
        "http://wanderlust.com/2000/08/CorfuArticle.xml" />
   </rdf:Description>
   
   <rdf:Description rdf:about=
      "http://wanderlust.com/2000/08/CorfuArticle.xml">
      <dc:identifier rdf:resource="wanderlust:2357847" />
      <dc:format>text/xml</dc:format>
     <dc:type rdf:resource=
         "http://prismstandard.org/1.0/resourcetypes.xml#article" />
      <prism:category rdf:resource=
         "http://prismstandard.org/1.0/category.xml#review" />
      <prism:hasPart rdf:resource=
        "http://wanderlust.com/2000/08/CorfuVacation.xml" />
      <prism:hasPart rdf:resource=
        "http://wanderlust.com/2000/08/CorfuBeach.jpg" /> 
   </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Since both the body text and the article have XML as their media format it would not be possible to tell which resource is the article and which resource is the body text based on the MIME type alone. The dc:type element makes the distinction between the article body and the article itself. The prism:category element makes a further distinction, that the article and body text present a review of a place.

2.6  Rights

Intellectual property rights and restrictions for content reuse form a major part of the PRISM Specification. The PRISM Rights framework is designed to save time in determining whether a resource may be reused and if so, how it may be used. It is not designed to specify the behavior of digital rights management systems, that is the province of existing specifications like XrML.

The travel article description has been marked up to show the rights for the text, article and photo. In this simple case, Wanderlust has complete rights to reuse the article and the text, but they received the beach photo from a freelance photographer who did not give Wanderlust permission to reuse it.

<rdf:RDF xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/1.0#" 
         xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# 
         xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1#"> 
   <rdf:Description rdf:about=
      "http://wanderlust.com/2000/08/CorfuBeach.jpg"> 
      <dc:identifier rdf:resource="wanderlust:2357845" />
      ...
      <prism:isPartOf rdf:resource=
         "http://wanderlust.com/2000/08/CorfuArticle.xml" />
      <dc:rights rdf:parseType="resource"> 
         <rdf:value>This image cannot be reused without written 
            permission from Freelance Photographer, inc.</rdf:value>
         <prism:copyright>Copyright (c) 2000 Freelance Photographer,
            inc. </prism:copyright>
         <prism:isCopyrighted>yes</prism:isCopyrighted> 
         <prism:isForReuse>no</prism:isForReuse> 
      </dc:rights>
   </rdf:Description> 

   <rdf:Description rdf:about=
      "http://wanderlust.com/2000/08/CorfuSidebar.xml"> 
      ...
      <dc:rights rdf:parseType="resource"> 
         <rdf:value>Wanderlust can use this sidebar without
            restrictions</rdf:value>
         <prism:copyright>Copyright (c) 2000 Wanderlust Publications,
            inc.</prism:copyright>
         <prism:isCopyrighted>yes</prism:isCopyrighted> 
         <prism:isForReuse>yes</prism:isForReuse> 
         <prism:providerType rdf:resource=
            "http://prismstandard.org/1.0/provider.xml#internal"/> 
         <prism:right rdf:resource=
            "http://prismstandard.org/1.0/right.xml#all"/> 
      </dc:rights>
   </rdf:Description> 

   <rdf:Description rdf:about=
      "http://wanderlust.com/2000/08/CorfuArticle.xml"> 
      ...
      <dc:rights rdf:parseType="resource"> 
         <rdf:value>Wanderlust can use this article without
            restrictions</rdf:value>
         <prism:copyright>Copyright (c) 2000 Wanderlust Publications, 
            inc.</prism:copyright>
         <prism:isCopyrighted>yes</prism:isCopyrighted> 
         <prism:isForReuse>yes</prism:isForReuse> 
         <prism:providerType rdf:resource=
            "http://prismstandard.org/1.0/provider.xml#internal"/> 
         <prism:right rdf:resource=
            "http://prismstandard.org/1.0/right.xml#all"/> 
      </dc:rights>
   </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

2.7  Example - Photo with no restrictions

Following is a simple example to show how all the elements and controlled terms fit together. The following RDF document uses the PRISM rights vocabulary to describe an image from a freelance photographer. In this case, Pop Star Magazine negotiated the right to resell the photo as long as the photo is not edited.

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <rdf:RDF 
      xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
      xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core#"
      xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/1.0#">

      <rdf:Description rdf:about=
            "http://popstarmag.com/photos/20000807/bubblestempo.jpg">
         <dc:identifier rdf:resource=
            "http://freelance.com/photos/20000807/13245"/>
         <dc:description>Bubbles leaving the Tempo restaurant 
            in Los Angeles.</dc:description>
         <dc:rights rdf:parseType="resource">
            <rdf:value>This image can be reused as long as it 
               is not modified in any way.</rdf:value>
            <prism:copyright>Copyright (c) 2000 Pop Star Magazine,
               inc. All Rights Reserved.</prism:copyright>
            <prism:isCopyrighted>yes</prism:isCopyrighted>
            <prism:isForReuse>yes</prism:isForReuse>
            <prism:providerType rdf:resource=
               "http://prismstandard.org/1.0/provider.xml#internal"/>
            <!-- Cropping and embedding okay. Editing not okay. -->
            <prism:right rdf:resource=
               "http://prismstandard.org/1.0/right.xml#extract"/> 
            <prism:right rdf:resource=
               "http://prismstandard.org/1.0/right.xml#embed"/>
         </dc:rights>
      </rdf:Description>

   </rdf:RDF>

top      

3  PRISM Framework

The PRISM specification defines an XML metadata vocabulary to assist in the re-purposing, syndication, and distribution of content. The PRISM framework is designed to:

  
• Identify resources.
  
• Describe resources.
  
• Relate resources to each other, and
  
• Exchange resources with attached metadata.

PRISM encourages applications to use URIs to identify resources, although it is possible to use other identification schemes.

In PRISM, content is composed of related resources. A magazine article, for example, may contain body text, a figure, and a sidebar. The figure, in turn, contains a caption, a chart displaying some data, and a background image. These individual resources and their assembly into a coherent composition need to be described for repurposing.

PRISM uses a subset of the W3C's Resource Description Framework (RDF) to organize resource metadata. RDF describes the structure of collections of resources and provides descriptive metadata about them. PRISM uses and extends relation types defined by the Dublin Core to define ways that resources can be related. [DCMI-R]

3.1  Identifiers

In order to describe or syndicate resources, and to accommodate alternative versions, corrections and retractions, all resources MUST have a unique identifier. In many cases, the URL to the resource serves as the unique identifier.

A resource is identified by the content of the rdf:about attribute in the rdf:description element. However, resources can have many identifiers specified with the dc:identifier element. For example, a resource can be identified by a URL and by an internal asset ID that an organization would use to access it in their database. PRISM-compliant applications MUST maintain the unique identifier(s) provided on a resource.

PRISM has no policy on the assignment of identifiers, other than that the party assigning an identifier not assign the same identifier to a different resource, using whatever definition of 'different' the assigning party deems appropriate.

The PRISM specification adopts a pragmatic definition of identity: two resources are considered to be 'the same' if they have the same unique identifier. The party assigning the identifier is the sole arbiter of what they mean by 'the same'." Note that this definition does not imply that two resources are different if their identifiers are different. Different identifiers can be assigned to the same resource. If the identifiers are the same, it is the same resource. Many resources will have multiple identifiers assigned to them.

PRISM does not require that all resources carry the same identifier through their entire lifecycle. If the publisher assigns a new identifier, the publisher MUST retain information on the origin and licensing of the resource so that someone later in its lifecycle can determine how to obtain the rights to reuse it.

PRISM STRONGLY ENCOURAGES all compliant systems to use URIs to encode unique identifiers. [See RFC-2396]

3.2  PRISM Profile of the Resource Description Framework

The Resource Description Framework (RDF) has been standardized by the W3C to provide a general framework for metadata. As such, its capabilities exceed those required by PRISM. Therefore, this document specifies a 'profile' – a restricted subset – of RDF that all PRISM-compliant software must support. This profile excludes certain capabilities of RDF that are not needed in PRISM applications, thus simplifying the development of PRISM applications that cannot, for one reason or another, make use of an existing RDF parsing front-end.

Applications conforming to the PRISM specification MUST produce correct RDF documents that can be read by any RDF-compliant software. PRISM-compliant software does not have to be capable of processing any arbitrary RDF documents.

There are three general classes of simplification this document makes in its profile of RDF. First, there are certain capabilities of RDF that are excluded. Second, there are some syntactic abbreviations allowed in RDF that are excluded from PRISM documents. Third, there are conventions adopted for the syntax used to express information where RDF allows multiple ways of saying the same thing.

The working group explicitly requests         feedback on the PRISM's use of RDF as a metadata       framework.

3.2.1  Constraint 1: Top-level structure of Descriptions

The formal grammar for RDF [W3C-RDF] specifies:

   [6.1] RDF ::= ['<rdf:RDF>'] obj* ['</rdf:RDF>']
   [6.2] obj ::= description | container

For PRISM systems, the optional rdf:RDF wrapper element is required, and its child elements are restricted to being rdf:description elements. The production that replaces productions 6.1 and 6.2 for PRISM systems is:

   RDF ::= '<rdf:RDF' namespace_decls '>' description+'</rdf:RDF>'

3.2.2  Constraint 2: rdf:aboutEachPrefix disallowed

PRISM descriptions MUST NOT use the rdf:aboutEachPrefix attribute. Production [6.8] of the RDF M&S specification thus becomes:

   AboutEachAttr ::= ' aboutEach="' URI-reference '"'

3.2.3  Constraint 3: Element/Attribute equivalence abbreviations disallowed

The RDF specification defines three forms of abbreviation. Two of those assume that XML elements and XML attributes produce equivalent information in the RDF model being constructed. Those two abbreviations are disallowed in PRISM specifications. PRISM-compliant descriptions MUST NOT create descriptions that use PRISM-defined elements as attributes.

This is a new suggestion, feedback is particularly requested.

3.2.4  Constraint 4: rdf:parseType="Resource" disallowed

The RDF specification allows what is, in effect, another form of abbreviation when the rdf:parseType attribute is given a value of "Resource". PRISM documents MUST NOT provide "Resource" as a value of the rdf:parseType attribute. They MUST only use the rdf:parseType attribute with a value of "Literal".

This is a new suggestion, feedback is particularly requested.

3.2.5  Further Qualifications

No other overall restrictions in the allowed RDF syntax are specified in this section. However, implementers are advised to pay particular attention to three points:

  

1. The sections defining various PRISM elements will typically restrict the   data types of values for elements, so general-purpose RDF processing is   unlikely to be needed.

  

2. If general RDF handling is NOT provided in an implementation, the   implementation must decide how it will deal with unsupported descriptive   elements. The PRISM specification does not preclude other descriptive   elements, although their interoperation cannot be guaranteed.

  

3. To aid automated processing of PRISM metadata, this specification defines   a separate namespace for PRISM elements suitable for in-line markup. Thus,   prism:org is an   RDF statement and pim:org is an organization as in-line markup.

3.2.6  Conventions for Property Values

To aid in the automatic processing of PRISM documents, PRISM utilizes some conventions in expressing values of RDF properties. The values are expressed in three ways. First, a resource or an entry in a controlled vocabulary may be referenced with the rdf:resource attribute. For example, a book can be identified by its ISBN number as follows:

   <dc:identifier 
    rdf:resource="urn:isbn:0-932592-00-7"/>

Second, human readable text is represented as element content:

   <dc:title>Juggling for the Complete 
   Klutz</dc:title>

That element content may contain XML markup, in which case the RDF parseType attribute MUST be given and MUST have a value of 'Literal'. In other cases, the value of that attribute is assumed to be 'resource' and the attribute need not be specified.

Third, controlled vocabulary entries may be specified in-line. For example:

   <dc:subject
      <prism:Descriptor
            rdf:about=http://www.lc.gov/LCC/QA76>
         <prism:vocabulary>Library of Congress Classification
         </prism:vocabulary>
         <prism:code>QA-76</prism:code>
         <prism:label>Mathematical software</prism:label>
      </prism:Descriptor>
   </dc:subject>

XML DTDs cannot describe such a flexible content model, so no DTD is provided.

3.2.7  Convention 1:In-line source vocabulary term definitions preferred?

This is a new suggestion, feedback is particularly requested.

PRISM descriptions make extensive use of values selected from controlled vocabularies. Conceptually, all that is needed is a reference to the vocabulary entry. But for practical considerations such as human readability, ease of use of full-text search tools, etc., it is useful to be able to provide information about the controlled vocabulary entry, such as its human-readable label.

The PRISM specification recommends that when this additional information is provided, that it be provided in-line, instead of as an additional rdf:Description element. For example, a story whose subject is "Mining" as defined in the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS), would have the following description:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:prism=
            "http://prismstandard.org/1.0#"
         xmlns:rdf=
            "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
         xmlns:dc=
            "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1#">

   <rdf:Description rdf:about="story.xml">
      <dc:subject>
         <psv:Descriptor rdf:about="NAICS:21">
            <psv:vocab>North American Industrial Classification
               System</psv:vocab>
            <psv:code>21</psv:code>
            <psv:label>Mining</psv:label>
         </psv:Descriptor>
      </dc:subject>
   </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

as opposed to the form of the description below, where the source vocabulary term is described out-of-line instead of in-line.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/1.0#"
         xmlns:rdf=
            "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
         xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1#">

   <rdf:Description rdf:about="story.xml">
      <dc:subject rdf:resource="NAICS:21"/>
   </rdf:Description>

   <rdf:Description rdf:about="NAICS:21">
      <psv:vocab>North American Industrial Classification 
         System</psv:vocab>
      <psv:code>21</psv:code>
      <psv:label>Mining</psv:label>
   </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

3.3  Semantics of Rights and Permissions

3.3.1  Uses, Rights and Restrictions

PRISM specifies three types of rights relevant to the reuse of a resource.  These terms have are adapted from XrML:

• embed – the right to include this resource in another derivative work

• extract – the right to remove a portion of this resource, such as cropping an image or removing copy from the end of a news story.

• edit – The right to edit this resource, such as downsampling an image or adding additional copy to a story

  .

• all – All of the above rights.

These rights can be granted for uses of a resource. PRISM specifies the following usage types:

• geography – Making a resource available in certain geographic areas.

• time – Making a resource available during certain periods of time.

• industry – Making a resource available in a publication for a certain industry domain.

• format – Making a resource available in a certain format: in a print publication, on the Web, on a cell phone or an eBook.

• manipulation – Making particular modifications to a resource such as reducing the number of colors, superimposing other content.  The right to include part of a work, i.e. cropping is handled by the edit right.

Types of rights and uses for a resource are specified using controlled vocabulary terms. PRISM has specified a set of commonly used rights and uses. It is possible to extend the available set of rights and uses by defining other vocabularies for rights and uses and referencing them instead.

These are the elements that are used in order to specify rights, uses and restrictions:

3.3.2  General Semantics

This section describes how rights and restrictions is PRISM documents are interpreted.

One goal of the rights vocabulary is to make the all and nothing cases easy to specify.  Commonly, a content provided either has no rights to reuse a resource or owns it outright and can do whatever they want to with it. If no rights are specified at all, then no rights have been granted. If the rights type all has been specified, then all rights are granted.

All rights have to be explicitly granted.  If a right is not specified, it is not granted.  So if there is no
   <prism:right rdf:resource=
      "http://prismstandard.org/1.0/right.xml#edit" />
or
   <prism:right rdf:resource=
      "http://prismstandard.org/1.0/right.xml#all" />
statement in a PRISM document, then no rights to edit a resource can be assumed.

In this example, the right to use a resource in a derivative work is granted, but the right to edit it or extract a piece of it are not granted:

<rdf:description rdf:about=
      "http://wanderlust.com/photos/BelizeHilton.jpg>
   <prism:right rdf:resource=
         "http://prismstandard.org/1.0/right.xml#embed" />
</rdf:description>

Uses are implicitly granted. If a type of use is not specified, then that use is allowed to the extent that it is not restricted under <prism:restrictions>. In the above example, publication is allowed anywhere, in any format, for any time period and in any industry domain, as long as it is not edited or cropped in any way. If a use is specified, then exactly the specified uses are granted. In the following example a resource can be published in an unaltered form in the US or Canada.  Since no uses based on time, geography or industry have been specified, those uses are not restricted.

<rdf:description rdf:about=
      "http://wanderlust.com/photos/BelizeBeach20000709.jpg">
   <prism:right rdf:resource=
         "http://prismstandard.org/1.0/right.xml#embed" />
   <prism:use>
      <prism:usageType rdf:resource=
            "http://prismstandard.org/1.0/usage.xml#geography" />
      <prism:usage rdf:resource="iso3166-2:US" />
      <prism:usage rdf:resource="iso3166-2:CA" />
   </prism:use>
</rdf:description>

Uses can be restricted under <prism:restrictions>. The following example specifies that a resource can be published in the US, or Canada, but publication is restricted between September 1^st and the 30^th, 2000:

<rdf:description rdf:about=
      "http://wanderlust.com/photos/BelizeBeach20000709.jpg" >
   <prism:right rdf:parseType="resource">
      <prism:rightsName rdf:resource=
            " http://prismstandard.org/1.0/right.xml#embed" /> 
      <prism:allowedUse rdf:parseType="resource"> 
         <prism:usageType rdf:resource=
               " http://prismstandard.org/1.0/usage.xml#geography" /> 
         <prism:usage rdf:resource="iso3166-2:US" /> 
         <prism:usage rdf:resource="iso3166-2:CA" /> 
      </prism:allowedUse> 
      <prism:restrictedUse rdf:parseType="resource"> 
      <prism:usageType rdf:resource=
            "http://prismstandard.org/1.0/usage.xml#time" /> 
         <prism:timeFormat rdf:resource=
               "http://prismstandard.org/1.0/time.xml#range"/> 
         <prism:timeFrom>20000901T0:00:00</prism:timeFrom> 
         <prism:timeUntil>20000930T0:00:00</prism:timeUntil> 
      </prism:restrictedUse> 
   </prism:right> 
</rdf:description> 

3.3.3  Simplified Semantics

For cases where a simple statement of rights and permissions is sufficient, PRISM allows the following:

As part of the resource description:

• Provide a <prism:isForReuse> flag

• Provide contact information for whoever someone needs to ask for permission.

As part of the dc:rights element:  Provide a container with plaintext descriptions of what uses are allowed and restricted.

<dc:rights>
   <rdf:description rdf:about=
         "http://wanderlust.com/photos/BelizeBeach20000709.jpg"> 
      <prism:right>can be published in the US, or 
            Canada</prism:right> 
      <prism:restriction>publication is not allowed between 
            September 1st, 2000 and September 30th, 2000
      </prism:restriction> 
   </rdf:description> 
</dc:rights>

top      

4  Namespaces and Functional Groups

4.1  Namespaces

The PRISM specification makes use of XML Namespaces [W3C-XML-NS] to insure unique elements when reusing existing vocabularies. Every PRISM metadata document MUST declare the namespaces it uses.

4.2  Functional Groups of PRISM and DC Elements

4.2.1  Resource Descriptors

These elements from the Dublin Core form the basis for PRISM's descriptive metadata.

4.2.2  Provenance

These elements describe the supply chain for a resource to indicate what the source material for a resource was and through which organizations the resource has passed. PRISM uses the source property to identify the original creator of the resource, the publisher property to identify the primary provider of the information (such as a major wire service), and the distributor property to identify other members of the distribution chain, if any.

4.2.3  Timestamps

There are several times that mark the major milestones in the life of a news resource: The time the story is published, the time it may be released (if not immediately), the time it is received by a customer, and the time that the story expires (if any). Dates and times are represented using the W3C-defined profile of ISO 8601. [W3C-NOTE-datetime]

PRISM timestamps appear 0 or 1 times.

4.2.4  Subject Description

These elements describe the subject matter of a resource. Best practice is for dc:subject to contain subject description elements that reference controlled vocabulary terms. If that is not possible, dc:subject can also contain a prose description of the subject. Best practice is for subject description elements to reference controlled vocabulary terms such as the IPTC Subject Reference System.

4.2.5  Resource Relationships

The following elements identify resources that are related and indicate the nature of the relation. They can model containment relations - this article contains this photo, story text and caption; formats - this word document exists in HTML, XML and PDF; alternatives - an image that cannot be reused has alternatives that can be; and many other types of relations.

4.2.6  Rights and Permissions

The PRISM rights and permissions vocabulary is designed to facilitate reuse and clearance processes for parties with established business relationships by explicitly specifying the rights and/or restrictions connected with a resource. PRISM is NOT concerned with digital rights enforcement. PRISM does not specify policy or provide instructions to trusted viewers and repositories on how they should behave. PRISM also does not specify fee or payment details. Standards such as XrML exist to serve those needs.

The design goals of rights and permissions are:

  

• To be able to describe reuse rights in a precise and consistent manner.

  

• To minimize the amount of metadata that needs to be applied to resources   that will not be reused.

  

• To make simple cases such as no rights or unrestricted use simple to   specify, while providing the richness to indicate any type of usage or   restriction.

Also note that, unlike metadata such as "title" which is expected to be invariant, rights and permissions metadata is generally intended for consumption by systems immediately downstream from the generator.

4.2.6.1  General Rights Information

This section defines some elements for basic rights information such as a copyright statement, a location on an external information where detailed rights information can be accessed, whether any specified rights are for exclusive use of a resource, and a reuse flag. If the reuse flag is set to be 'no' it means that the resource is not intended for reuse, so there is no need to bother specifying any additional metadata, and it can be used as a filter for searches through an archive so reviewers do not have to waste time looking at content that cannot be reused.

4.2.6.2  Contract Information

This section describes a number of terms to keep track of legal agreements to use content and any stakeholders in the resale of a resource, such as the publisher, rights holder, copyright holder, and content copyright holder.

4.2.6.3 Rights and Permissions

Types of rights and uses for a resource are specified using controlled vocabulary terms for the elements listed below. PRISM has specified a set of commonly used rights and uses. It is possible to extend the available set of rights and uses by defining other vocabularies for rights and uses and referencing them instead.

These are the elements used to specify rights, uses and restrictions are:

4.3  PRISM Source Vocabulary

Several elements in PRISM-approved or PRISM-extended namespaces take values that are intended to come from controlled vocabularies. Controlled vocabularies are managed lists of terms. They may be hierarchically structured subject classification systems like the Dewey Decimal Code or the IPTC's Subject Reference System. Or they may be large, flat, lists of names of companies, people, places, etc. Such lists might come from an external source, or from a company's internal database systems.

The PRISM specification provides RDF Property Types for describing terms in a controlled vocabulary. Each element is uniquely identified with a URI. (Note that it is NOT a requirement that the URI be globally resolvable).

Other information, such as whether the controlled term describes a for-profit vs. non-profit organization can be handled with other RDF Property Types.

Note: This section is subject to         change, as the PRISM working group is investigating the adoption of         NewsML's notion of citing controlled     vocabularies.

PRISM's recommended practice is that either the name of the publisher be supplied as content (e.g. <dc:publisher>Random House</dc:publisher>) or that a controlled term from an authority file be used. For example:

   <dc:publisher rdf:resource="pubs:RH" />

   . . .

   <rdf:description rdf:about="pubs:RH">
      <psv:vocabulary>Publishers of the World
         </psv:vocabulary>
      <psv:code>RH</psv:code>
      <psv:label>Random House</psv:label>
   </rdf:description>

4.10.1  Example - Citing Source Vocabularies

   <rdf:RDF
      xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/metadata/DublinCore#"
      xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/TR/RDFM&S#"
      xmlns:psv=
            "http://www.idealliance.org/namespaces/PRISM/SV/v2/">
      <!-- Dublin Core description of a document. Note use of both 
            strings and references to other resources as 
            values -->
      <rdf:Description rdf:about=http://www.foo.com/index.html>
         <dc:creator>John Smith</dc:creator>
         <dc:subject rdf:resource="iptc:sports"/>
      </rdf:Description>
      <!-- More info about a subject descriptor term -->
      <rdf:Description rdf:about="iptc:sports">
         <psv:vocabulary>IPTC SRS</psv:vocabulary>
         <psv:label>Sports</psv:label>
      </rdf:Description>
   </rdf:RDF>
   

4.4  PRISM In-line Markup

Important information, such as dates or companies often occurs in the text of an article. Some organizations prefer to mark that data in-line rather than create a large set of subject description elements. PRISM provides the following elements for inline markup:

The next version of the NITF will contain a mechanism to reference controlled vocabularies and authority files. It is likely that future versions of the PRISM specification will specify a number of elements from NITF to use instead of defining in-line markup itself.

top      

5  Element Definitions

5.1  Aliases

Some of the element defined in this section use the following aliases:

5.2  Dublin Core Element Definitions

Dublin Core allows very general semantics for each element. The following Dublin Core element definitions were taken from the Dublin Core specification. Additional comments indicate the use of each Dublin Core element in a PRISM document. The use of some DC elements is encouraged, others are discouraged, and others constrained.

5.2.1  dc:contributor

5.2.2  dc:coverage

5.2.3  dc:creator

5.2.4  dc:date

5.2.5  dc:description

5.2.6  dc:format

5.2.7  dc:identifier

5.2.8  dc:language

5.2.9  dc:publisher

5.2.10  dc:relation

5.2.11  dc:rights

5.2.12  dc:source

5.2.13  dc:subject

5.2.14  dc:title

5.2.15  dc:type

5.3  PRISM Element Definitions

5.3.1  prism:allowedUse

<prism:allowedUse rdf:parseType="resource">
   <prism:usageType rdf:resource=
      "http://prismstandard.org/1.0/usage.xml#geography" />
   <prism:usage rdf:resource="iso3166-2:US" />
   <prism:usage rdf:resource="iso3166-2:CA" />
</prism:allowedUse>

5.3.2  prism:category

5.3.3 prism:creationTime

5.3.4  prism:contentCopyrightHolder

5.3.5  prism:copyright

5.3.6  prism:distributor

5.3.7  prism:expireTime

5.3.8  prism:hasAlternative

5.3.9  prism:hasCorrection

5.3.10  prism:hasFormat

5.3.11  prism:hasPart

5.3.12  prism:hasVersion

5.3.13  prism:isAlternativeFor

5.3.14  prism:isBasedOn

5.3.15  prism:isBasisFor

5.3.16  prism:isCorrectionOf

5.3.17  prism:isExclusive

5.3.18  prism:isFormatOf

5.3.19  prism:isForReuse

5.3.23  prism:isVersionOf

5.3.24  prism:modifyTime

5.3.25  prism:preference

5.3.26  prism:providerType

5.3.27  prism:publicationTime

5.3.28  prism:receivedTime

5.3.29  prism:references

5.3.30  prism:releaseTime

5.3.31  prism:requires

5.3.32  prism:restrictedUse

5.3.33  prism:right

5.3.34  prism:rightsHolder

5.3.35  prism:rightsName

5.3.36  prism:subjectCreator

5.3.37  prism:subjectEvent

5.3.38  prism:subjectIndustry

5.3.39  prism:subjectLocation

5.3.40  prism:subjectOrg

5.3.41  prism:subjectPerson

5.3.42  prism:subjectURL

5.3.43  prism:timeFrom

5.3.44  prism:timeUntil

5.3.45  prism:timeMoment

5.3.46  prism:timeUnits

5.3.47  prism:usage

5.3.48  prism:usageType

5.3.49  prism:use

5.4  PRISM Inline Markup Element Definitions

Metadata is typically considered as out-of-line information. Fields such as Author, Title, and Subject are stereotypical. However, a consistent theme from the publishers in the working group was the need for inline markup of organizations, locations, product names, personal names, quotations, etc.

To meet the needs of the publishers, the PRISM specification provides the following elements that can be used for in-line markup. Note that all of these elements map to elements in the NITF DTD. However, they go beyond the current NITF DTD, by allowing references to authority files.

Developers of XML specifications for the publishing industry can use the following DTD fragment to incorporate PRISM's in-line markup elements into their DTDs. The fragment assumes that the basic textual content markup is described in another parameter entity known as %content.mix;

<!-- href contains an authority file reference -->
<!ENTITY % inlineAttrs " href CDATA #IMPLIED">

<!ELEMENT pim:location (%content.mix; )>
<!ATTLIST pim:location %inlineAttrs; >
<!ELEMENT pim:objectTitle (%content.mix; )>
<!ATTLIST pim:objectTitle %inlineAttrs; >
<!ELEMENT pim:org (%content.mix; )>
<!ATTLIST pim:org %inlineAttrs; >
<!ELEMENT pim:person (%content.mix; )>
<!ATTLIST pim:person %inlineAttrs; >
<!ELEMENT pim:quote (%content.mix; )>
<!ATTLIST pim:quote personRef CDATA #IMPLIED
                    placeRef CDATA #IMPLIED
                    location CDATA #IMPLIED
                    date CDATA #IMPLED >

5.4.1  pim:location

5.4.2  pim:objectTitle

5.4.3  pim:org

5.4.4  pim:person

5.4.5  pim:quote

5.5  PRISM Source Vocabulary Element Definitions

The PRISM Source Vocabulary provides a mechanism for describing and conveying all or a portion of a controlled vocabulary or authority file.

5.5.1  psv:broaderTerm

5.5.2  psv:code

5.5.3  psv:definition

5.5.4  psv:label

5.5.5  psv:narrowerTerm

5.5.6  psv:relatedTerm

5.5.7  psv:synonym

5.5.8  psv:vocabulary

top      

6  PRISM Controlled Vocabularies

The specification to this point has focused on the elements that may be used in a PRISM metadata document. Elements, in effect, define the syntax of the document. To convey the meaning of a document, the values that a given element may take must also be defined. This section lists the controlled vocabularies that comprise the set of legal values for certain PRISM elements. Other elements use controlled vocabularies created and maintained by third parties (such as the ISO 3166 codes for country names). Still other elements will require some domain-specific controlled vocabulary (e.g., the North American Industrial Classification System).

The working group anticipates that each controlled vocabulary will be available as a separate XML document identified by a URI.  That information will be included in a future version of the specification.

6.1  Resource Role Vocabularies

Media types, such as text/html or image/jpeg, provide enough information for software to render data.  But activities like discovery and re-purposing demand more specific information about the role of a resource. The PRISM Specification defines two controlled vocabularies to specify the nature of a resource: the Resource Type and the Resource Category.

6.1.1  Resource Type

The Resource Type defines the way that a resource presents information. The Resource Type captures different information than the format of a resource, as specified using MIME types. For example, a JPEG could be a photo, line drawing, or chart. The rendering software does not care, but potential users of the content do.  The Resource type is also not specific to its intellectual content (e.g. election results vs. death rates). The Resource Type values form a controlled vocabulary for the <dc:type> element.

The URL for the PRISM resource type vocabulary is: http://prismstandard.org/1.0/resourcetypes.xml.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

Term	Description
article	Literary compositions prepared for publication as an independent       portion of a magazine, newspaper, encyclopedia, or other work. [AAT]
book	Sheets of paper, parchment, or similar material, that are blank,       written on, or printed, and are strung or bound together; especially, when       printed, a bound volume, or a volume of some size. [AAT]
body	The principal component. [NewsML]
catalog	Enumerations of items, usually arranged systematically, with       descriptive details; may be in book or pamphlet form, on cards, or online.       [AAT]
electronicBook1	A digital object typically thought of as an electronic analog to a       physical hardcover or softcover book.
graph	Representations of any sort of data by means of dots, lines, or bars;       usually to illustrate relationships. [AAT]
illustration	Representations or diagrams that clarify, usually accompanying a text,       sometimes part of an advertisement. [AAT]
interactiveContent	Content such as crossword puzzles,       financial calculators and applets, that invites a person to do something other than read or view the material.
journal	Periodicals containing scholarly articles or otherwise disseminating       information on developments in scholarly fields. [AAT]
list	A series of names, words, or other items written, printed, or imagined       one after the other. [dictionary.com]
magazine	Periodicals containing articles, essays, poems, or other writings by       different authors, usually on a variety of topics and intended for a       general reading public or treating a particular area of interest for a       popular audience. [AAT]
manual	Work containing concise information, often rules or instructions       needed to perform tasks or processes. [AAT]
news	A collection of news stories.
newspaper	Papers that are printed and distributed daily, weekly, or at some       other regular and usually short intervals and which contain news,       editorials and opinions, features, advertising, and other matter       considered of general interest. [AAT]
photo	A picture of a person or scene in the form of a print or transparent       slide; recorded by a camera on light-sensitive material. [WORDNET]
sidebar	Component associated with an article, that typically presents additional, contrasting, or late-breaking news. [AAT]
table	Condensed, orderly arrangements of data, especially those in which the       data are arranged in columns and rows. [AAT]

8.1.2  Resource Category

The Resource Category describes the nature of the intellectual content of the resource.  (e.g. obituary, election result)  The Resource Category values form a controlled vocabulary for the <prism:category> element, defined by the PRISM specification.

The URL for the PRISM Resource Category vocabulary is: http://prismstandard.org/1.0/category.xml.

6.2 Rights Property Values

These terms are the subset of terms from XrML [XRML] pertinent for reuse, and serve as values for the prism:right element.

The URL for the PRISM rights property values is: http://prismstandard.org/1.0/right.xml.

6.3 Usage Property Values

These terms describe how a resource may or may not be used and are values for the prism:usageType element.

The URL for PRISM usage property values is: http://prismstandard.org/1.0/usage.xml
                                                                                             

Term	Description
geography	The geographic areas in which a resource may be used.
time	The periods of time in which a resource may be used.
industry	The industry domain a resource may be used.
format	The medium in which an object may be used.
manipulation	The kinds of changes (e.g., downsampled, resized, cropped) that may be applied to an object.
circulation	How large an audience is expected to see this object.

6.4 Provider Property Values

This set of values describes the resource provider and are used in the prism:providerType element.

The URL for the Provider property values is: http://prismstandard.org/1.0/provider.xml
                                                      

Term	Description
internal	Internal archive/staff writer or photographer.
mediaHouse	From a media house that aggregates and sells content
freelancer	From a freelance writer/photographer/etc.

 

top      

7.  References

[AAT] Getty Art and Architecture Thesarus. <http://shiva.pub.getty.edu/aat_browser/>

[DCMI] Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1: Reference Description. <http://purl.org/dc/documents/rec-dces-19990702.htm>

[DCMI- R] Dublin Core Relations.  2000-07-11.  
<http://purl.oclc.org/dc/documents/wd-relation-current.htm>

[ICE] The Information and Content Exchange (ICE) Protocol.  
<http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-ice>

[IETF-XML-Media] IETF Draft: XML Media Types. <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-murata-xml-09.txt>

[IPTC-NEWSML] International Press and Telecommunications Council, NewsML Version 1.0 Beta.<http://www.iptc.org/NewsML/NewsMLv1T.zip>

[IPTC-NITF] International Press and Telecommunications Council, News Industry Text Format.
<http://www.nitf.org/dtd.html>

[ISO-639] ISO-639: Code for the representation of names of languages, 1988 et seq. <http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/related/iso639.txt>

[ISO-639] ISO 639 - Codes for the representation of names of languages.
<http://www.oasis-open.org/cover/iso639a.html>

[ISO-3166] ISO 3166 - Codes for the representation of names of countries.
<http://www.oasis-open.org/cover/country3166.html>

[ISO-8601] ISO (International Organization for Standardization), ISO 8601:1988 (E) <http://www.iso.ch/cate/d15903.html> Data elements and interchange formats - Information interchange - Representation of dates and times, 1998. See also "The Time Service Department of the US Naval Observatory, International Time Scales" http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/bipm.html. The following provide discussions of ISO-8601: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html, http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dstrange/y2k.htm,
http://www.jat.org/jtt/datetime.html, http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime

[IETF-MIMETYPES] Internet Media Types.
<http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/media-types>

[NOTE-DRP] Arthur van Hoff, John Giannandrea, Mark Hapner, Steve Carter, Milo Medin, The HTTP Distribution and Replication Protocol http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-drp

[OG-UUID] The Open Group, Universal Unique Identifier Format http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9629399/apdxa.htm

[P3P-Arch] Joseph Reagle, Martin Presler-Martin, Melissa Dunn, Philip DesAutels, Lorrie Cranor, Mark Ackerman, General Overview of P3P Architecture. http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-P3P-arch.html

[PGP] Pretty Good Privacy. http://www.pgp.com/

[RFC-959] J. Postel, J. Reynolds, File Transfer Protocol. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0959.txt

[RFC-1766] H. Alvestrand. March 1995, Tags for the Identification of Languages. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1766.txt

[RFC-1808] R. Fielding, Relative Uniform Resource Locators http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1808.txt

[RFC-1738] T. Berners-Lee, L. Masinter, M. McCahill, Uniform Resource Locators (URL) http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1738.txt

[RFC-1766] Tags for the Identification of Languages, Internet RFC 1766. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1766.txt

[RFC-1945] T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, H. Frystyk, Hypertext Transfer Protocol - HTTP/1.0 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1945.txt

[RFC-2045] N. Freed & N. Borenstein. November 1996, Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2045.txt

[RFC-2046] N. Freed & N. Borenstein. November 1996, Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2046.txt

[RFC-2119] S. Bradner, Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Level  http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

[RFC-2183] R. Troost, S. Dorner, K. Moore. Communicating Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header Field. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2183.txt

[RFC-2311] S/MIME Version 2 message specification.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2311.txt

[RFC-2387] The MIME Multipart/Related Content Type. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2387.txt

[RFC-2392] Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource Locators. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2392.txt?number=2392

[RFC-2396] Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax, Internet RFC 2396. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt

[RFC-2413] Dublin Core Metadata for Resource Discovery. Internet RFC 2413. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2413.txt

[SSL] Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) Version 2.0 Specification. http://sitesearch.netscape.com/eng/security/SSL_2.html

[TGN] Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names. http://shiva.pub.getty.edu/tgn_browser/

[WebDAV] Jim Whitehead, D. Jensen, S. Carter, Y. Goland, A. Faizi, S. Carter, D. Jensen, HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring -- WEBDAV. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2518.txt

[W3C-DTF] Date and Time Formats, W3C Note. http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime

[W3C-InfoSet] XML Information Set Working Draft, http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset

[W3C-NOTE-datetime] Misha Wolf, Charles Wicksteed, Date and Time Formats http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime-970915.html

[W3C-RDF] Ora Lassila, Ralph R Swick, Resource Definition Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax

[W3C-smil] Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL) 1.0 Specification (SMIL) http://www.w3.org/TR/Rec-SMIL

[W3C-xml] Tim Bray, Jean Paoli, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Extensible Markup Language (XML) http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml

[W3C-XML-NS] Tim Bray, Dave Hollander, Andrew Layman; Namespaces in XML. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names

[XrML] ContentGuard, inc., Extensible Rights Markup Language. http://www.xrml.org/