Simon:
Thank you for your elucidating note. I have a question about one of your
assertions:
> Firstly, we need to understand that there is a subset of the
> DCMES whose
> values are themselves "resources": these are CCP, Relation
> and Source,
> and (since "place" is in the DCT1 list) possibly Coverage.
> For each of
> these properties, the value is another resource that may have its own
> description.
I think this is exactly where we start getting into trouble.
According to the definition of Relation and Source, for example, the only
allowable value for these elements is "a reference..."
Now, I understand your assertion, namely, that "For each of
these properties, the value is another resource that may have its own
description," in RDF terms, but the DC element definition does not seem to
allow for your RDF interpretation, that is, the actual resource may *not* be
the value of the Relation element, for example, only a *reference* to a
resource may be the value.
Read the definition:
Identifier: Relation
Definition: A reference to a related resource.
It does not say "or another resource that may have its own description."
In the troublesome CCP elements, we made the mistake of defining the
elements as "An entity ...," as though the value of the DC Element would or
could somehow actually *be* the entity itself. Of course it cannot. At
best, we can have a *reference* to the entity. In fact, that's all we can
ever have.
With that understanding, we are free to discover, list, create, or restrict
the *types* of references that we wish to allow such as name, URL, ID
number, or other.
--Erik
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|