Jody - Thanks for the enlightening answers. I like chicken-and-eggs: You have ‘your’ (Geo)Tools and some discovery services - say that’s the chicken - and I can finally release my eggs, namely GMDB (not the music db!) as open source metadata editor and geometa.info as a discovery portal (nice term). AND we got OAI-PMH! 
2006/9/26, Jody Garnett <jgarnett@anonymised.com>:
Stefan F. Keller wrote:
As you know, I am trying to reach consensus about a minimal
information metadata model (to all: I’m still awaiting comments or
counter proposals to http://tinyurl.com/kfkyv). So I like to give my
0.25 pennies to this open problem:Okay finally managed to read that page … not seeing any obvious
problems right now.
Fine; so I now finalized the model and put all field status on “Ok?” in order to ask for confirmation (or perdition…)
For dc:identifier we used the following convention:
- service:
http://localhost:8080/geoserver/wfs?REQUEST=GetCapabilities+SERVICE=WFS+VERSION=1.0- georesource:
http://localhost:8080/geoserver/wfs?REQUEST=GetCapabilities+SERVICE=WFS+VERSION=1.0#my_roads- we also made use of “jdbc” as a URI to identify database resources …
did not see database in your list?
Added database. But I don’t see any (local) uniqueness behind the dc:identifier you mention?
Do you want to consider multi lingual support on the human readable
fields at this time?
Ok; added encoding hints to the model for strings (for URI it should be clear).
Looking into your question about “description” vs. “abstract”… (for
Service)
- abstract - abstract from WFS capabilities
- description - quick human readable string
Confuses me: Why don’t you say that the abstract text out of WFS capabilities goes into dc:description?
– Stefan