Roland said:

> You describe resources (URI's) in RDF. If YOU want just one file:
> enjoy yourself:  take the three and merge them.

[snip]

> What should be the reason for doing so?  Sorry!
> I don't like web installations, which joke on their users.

Oh, don't misunderstand me! I was _not_ recommending actually doing it. I
was trying to say that I don't think RDF/RDFS stops you doing it (but I
admit I might be wrong).

My aim was to highlight that some of Rachel's concerns about the content of
the RDF schemas which might be generated from relational database entries
are actually also an issue if that information is managed as native RDF/XML.

> The DCMI-namespace (prop) rec. assigns URI's cooked up from namespace
URI's
> to terms. Do you suugest to add some more MetaData to the schema's:
> dcq:requires arcs to the [DCMI recommendations]/[Usage board decisions]
they reflect?
> I would have no problems with that.

In my other message where I fantasised about the potential of the registry
as a navigator for a micro-Semantic Web, yes, that's the sort of thing I was
thinking about.

> Again: Look at the namespace doc. The conclusion is the other way:
> You know what DC15 is, therefore you know the URI's.

OK, I was wondering about going in the other direction, from the property
URIs to the namespace name/URI, but I'm happy to accept that it's a
non-problem!

> Maybe there is something deep with the English word "vocabulary"?
> Does the term "audience" belong to the same vocabulary than "spatial" ?
> The DCMI use of "audience" and "spatial" is that of a string.
> Could you explain what you're up to, please.

Sorry, I should have been clearer in my questions. I meant to say, which
"vocabulary" does the term identified by the URI
http://purl.org/dc/terms/audience belong to? and is it the same "vocabulary"
as the term identified by the URI http://purl.org/dc/terms/spatial?

My reason for posing the questions is that I think the term "vocabulary"
gets used a bit loosely, and I wanted to try to pin down what we mean by it.
Specifically I wanted to clarify whether people saw the "vocabularies" as
coincident with the three DC XML namespaces, or whether we sometimes wish to
talk about (I mean, formally make RDF statements about) other aggregates of
DC terms. (If we don't, then fine - there is no problem!)

But what concerned me was that I hear folks talk about "DC unqualified" or
"DC simple" or "DC15" as a "vocabulary" and about the "DC qualifiers" as a
"vocabulary". Until recently these two "mapped" to two distinct namespaces,
so the terms in the "DC simple" vocabulary were the terms in the namespace
identified by the URI http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ and the terms in
vocabulary "DC qualifiers" were the terms in the namespace identified by....
another URI which might have been http://purl.org/dc/qualifiers/1.0/ (though
I'm not sure of the status of that URI!)

Now the namespace identified by the URI http://purl.org/dc/terms/ contains
the terms which were in the DC qualifiers vocabulary _and_ a new term
"audience" identified by the URI http://purl.org/dc/terms/audience plus two
new qualifiers. i.e. that namespace contains a term which isn't a qualifier.

My question was aimed at discovering whether folks still want to talk about
"DC Qualifiers" as an aggregate because now there is no straight
correspondence to a namespace i.e. the terms in the vocabulary "DC
Qualifiers" are a subset of the terms in the namespace
http://purl.org/dc/terms/

If we _don't_ need to talk about these other aggregates then as long as we
can get match the URIs for properties against namespace names/URIs, then
there is no problem.

If we _do_ need to talk about aggregates which are not coincident with the
namespaces, then we need some way of identifying those aggregates or at
least the terms which belong to them.  There may be  ways of deriving that
from the information in the scheas as they stand (e.g. if an aggregate is
composed of all properties which are sub-properties of terms in the
namespace http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/) but I just wanted to be sure
that we had the necessary information to draw those conclusions, if they are
required.

But again, non-one is shouting out that they want to talk about any
aggregates other than the namespaces, so it looks like a second non-problem!

> Think you're overly complicating things.

Oh, I hope so too!

Having observed recent exchanges on dc-architecture, I found myself needing
to re-examine several things I had taken for granted, so I just wanted to
ask these questions and be reassured. Transforming two (for me!) potential
problems into non-problems is a good day by my standards.... ;-)

Cheers

Pete