Harry said:
> I think this is a better approach than using eor:schema.
I was arguing that to an RDF application it's exactly the same.... ;-)
An RDF parser should (I think!) generate the same triples from
Form 1
=====
<rdf:RDF....xmlns:eor="http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13/eor#">
<eor:Schema rdf:about="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<dc:title>The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set</dc:title>
</eor:Schema>
</rdf:RDF>
and
Form 2
=====
<rdf:RDF....>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13/eor#Schema"/>
<dc:title>The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set</dc:title>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
So I think your concern is for the human reader being confused/deterred by
the use of an unfamiliar namespace and/or namespace prefix?
I _do_ think that may well be a valid concern, but we need to be clear about
what problem we're addressing.
> Should it be
>
> <rdf:Description rdf:ID="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
>
> though, rather than
>
> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">?
I'm inclined to say in this case it's the latter (i.e. use rdf:about rather
than rdf:ID).
However, sorry to harp on about this point..... I think I need to be
completely clear about what resource is being described here. I think the
inclusion of
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13/eor#Schema"/>
perhaps helps to remove ambiguity, but I'm not altogether sure it's
sufficient....
What resource are we seeking to describe in this set of statements in the
"administrative metadata"?
The namespace (in the abstract)? The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set?
(Maybe these first two are the same....?) Or are we describing the document
(an RDF Schema) in which the metadata is embedded?
I'm looking at the RDF schema which describes the EOR vocabulary, which is
at
http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13/eor
The description of the class http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13/eor#Schema
(i.e. eor:Schema) which I find there is:
<rdfs:Class rdf:about="http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13/eor#Schema">
<rdfs:label>RDF Schema</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:comment>A RDF schema</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text" />
<rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13/eor#" />
</rdfs:Class>
So, a resource of type eor:Schema is also a resource of type text and "the
human readable description" (rdfs:comment) of this description of the class
eor:Schema tells me it's "a RDF Schema".
(Roland, in answer to your follow-up question, this is where I - as a human
reader - find the answer to what http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13/eor#Schema
means, but I'm less sure what a program could do with that information as
it's "just" an rdfs:comment).
Excellent! So (I think) we are clearly trying to describe the RDF Schema,
_not_ an "abstract" entity like the namespace or the DC MES.
So, given that this is the case (we are describing a textual resource which
is an RDF Schema)..... and given that the resource which is obtained when I
de-reference a namespace URI might not (will not?) be an RDF Schema...... is
the namespace URI the most appropriate value for the rdf:about attribute?
I'm not completely sure it is. Do we perhaps need to use a URI/URL which
explicitly identifies the RDF Schema and which is distinct from the URI/URL
which identifies the namespace? Or to refer to the document in which it is
contained, should it say:
<rdf:Description rdf:about="">...<rdf:Description>
Or am I worrrying about a non-problem (as usual!)?
Cheers
Pete
|