Tim Cole <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> This allows dcq:encoding to be a specialized form of rdf:type -- with all
> the meaing of rdf:type PLUS additional specialized characteristics --
> rather than simply an exact equivalent of rdf:type.
I'm not aware of a dcq:encoding property, so I'm not sure quite how to
respond. Could you provide a reference to where this property is defined?
Ahh, I see, you are suggesting it. Hmm, I don't see the benefits...
> This allows dcq:encoding to be a specialized form of rdf:type -- with all
> the meaing of rdf:type PLUS additional specialized characteristics --
> rather than simply an exact equivalent of rdf:type.
What would these additional meanings be?
> It would facilitate
> local community extension of dcq semantics which is allowed (or encouraged
> depending on how you read the current spec), since it would enable local
> communities to create additional semantics in their namespaces designed to
> be used as specific class values under dcq:encoding (rather than simply as
> instances of more generic rdf:type class values).
I'm not sure I understand the benefit here. I think the value of rdf:type is
that it is well understood by RDF processors and there is a shortcut for
creating the triple (the "typed-node" syntax).
> Question 2. Regardless of the answer to 1, there are multiple, seemingly
> rdf-equivalent ways to represent dcq encoding information. E.g.:
<snip/>
> All 3 representations generate the identical 4 triples, and all 3
Actually, this is not true. Representations B and C are different, where C
incorrectly points to the string "http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13/dcq:MESH"
rather than the associated Web Resource with that URI.
> representations graph the same way (at least according to SiRPAC). From
> both an rdf-community perspective, and also from a DCMI-community
> perspective, is there any reason to prefer one representation over the
> others? (If so, which and why?)
I don't think that Dublin Core should care which is used. In fact, I don't
think it should even care whether the XML serialization is used. The
important thing is the triples that result after being parsed. The following
Notation3[1] parses to the same thing:
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix dc: <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/> .
@prefix dcq: <http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13/dcq#> .
[ dc:subject
[ a dcq:MESH ;
rdf:value "D08.586.682.075.400" ;
rdfs:label "Formate Dehydrogenase"
]
]
I think it should be considered just as reasonable.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/Primer.html
> My apologies if these questions have been asked before or are overly naive.
Not at all, in fact, they show a deep understanding of the issues.
--
[ Aaron Swartz | [log in to unmask] | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
|