On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Renato Iannella wrote:
> > I tend to agree with the sense of what Stu is saying here.
> > For the (Agent) elements, people seem to want to know the
> > type of the thing (party, process) which is the agent.
> > The concept is not new in discussions around qDC and the DC datamodel,
> > it was just a bit alarming the way it was introduced here, complete
> > with new tokens, in a kind of fait-accompli data-model in the context
> > of the qualifier voting form!
>
> Semantically, Object-Type is exactly the same as the Agent Type
> qualifier with its associated vocab list (DCAT1).
>
> In fact, the Type vocab list (DCT1) could also be considered
> as an "Object-Type" list.
Semantically yes. But... they currently appear in different places in the
model.
DC.Type tells you the 'object-type' of the resource being described.
The DCAT1 list tells you the 'object-type' of a related 'resource' (a
related agent). I'd therefore question whether it belongs in the
description of the resource being described!?
Andy
--
Distributed Systems and Services
UK Office for Library and Information Networking
University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK Voice: +44 1225 323933
www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell Fax: +44 1225 826838
Resource Discovery Network - www.rdn.ac.uk
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|