Naming a metadata element

You'd think that the name of a metadata element would be one of the easiest aspects of creating guidelines for that element. It's just a name--something that should be fairly obvious, like: Subject, Title, Author, Creator, or Publisher. When working with an element dealing with dates, it would make sense that it just be called...Date...right? Such a dilemma was far from my mind as I began browsing the class Wikispaces site that will house our indexing guidelines; that is, until I saw that my element had been initially entered into the list as Date Created. No big deal, right? Just change it! On further reflection, however, and a quick perusal of the information provided to us with which to index our images, I discovered that choosing a name for an element is not as simple and painless as I first thought.

So here's what I'm working with. The digitized DePol art images that I am creating the date-related indexing guidelines for have one piece of temporal information included, the date that the digital image was created. In theory, I have three options to choose from in naming my element: Date, Date Created, or Date Digitized.

Date is the generic name used in the Dublin Core metadata scheme. Its lack of specificity is also one of its strengths, as nearly any type of date-related information can be included under this element, while Date Created and Date Digitized are narrow in scope. This could be advantageous were any other temporal information to be added to the image metadata at a later time. There are also perhaps less concerns with Date being aggregated into other catalogs or repositories, should the need arise, since it is the standard method of naming the element. On the very negative side, there's no real way of discerning what is actually being represented by the Date element, depending upon how many dates are present, and the nature of the metadata being included.

Date Digitized is another good candidate, as we are dealing with the digitized version of a physical art image. In many ways, this name best fits the nature of the object being described. On the flip side, if we are treating the digital images as distinct entities apart from the physical images, then Date Digitized seems to be too derivative a concept. It is possible there may be concerns with interoperability of this name in contexts outside the immediate repository we are indexing for (though I believe Digitized is often used as a qualifier/modifier for Date). Further, use of this element name would likely necessitate the creation of separate metadata element for any other types of dates that may need to be added later.

Date Created has pros and cons fairly similar to Date Digitized. It is narrow in scope, lacking versatility, and again trends away from the standardized name utilized for this type of element (though, again, can often be used as a valid modifier). While Date Digitized best reflects the images in relationship to the original content, Date Created treats the digital images as unique, and distinct, entities, and therefore perhaps better embodies the spirit of the one-to-one principle (e.g. similar information resources should be identified, distinguished, and described as separate entities).

As of right now, I think I am still stuck between Date and Date Created, with the primary consideration really being the possibility of needing to enter other dates at a later time. Minus that consideration, Date Created is preferable due to its greater specificity as to the context of the date being entered. What do you think? Are there other considerations that I have not yet taken into account?