Andy wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, this schema is incorrect :-( For example it contains
> entries for 'note' and 'release', neither of which have ever been agreed
> by DCMI (as far as I recall).
Yupp! There are some more problems.
>
> I'm not sure when or how this schema got put in place but I would strongly
> suggest that the purl.org resolver configuration is changed so that the
> DCTERMS namespace URI does *not* resolve to this schema. Please can we
> make the DCTERMS namespace URI not resolve to anything until we have
> agreed what it should resolve to. This should happen now (or as soon as
> possible). Apologies if I missed a decision somewhere!?
>
> I recall lots of discussion about what the DCMI namespace URIs should
> resolve to (RDDL vs. RDF Schemas vs. nothing)... I don't recall any
> agreement that they should resolve to incorrect RDF schemas :-)
I share this point of view.
>
> I think there are similar problems with the schema that the DCMITYPE
> namespace URI resolves to
>
> http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/ -> http://dublincore.org/2001/08/14/dctype#
>
> This schema contains the term 'Resource' which has never been approved by
> DCMI.
>
> Again, this resolution of the namespace URI should be removed as soon as
> possible.
Yupp! There are also some more issues with that one.
>
> > A schema that defines only qualifiers (as opposed to a schema that
> > attempts to define all terms in the terms namespace, which are a mix of
> > qualifiers and 'new elements') may be most appropriate if we accept that
> > DCMI schemas should express the relationship between qualifiers and
> > elements. And if the resulting schema achieves this.
>
> Why is a schema that only includes qualifiers most appropriate? Can't a
> single schema express the relationships betwgeen qualifiers and elements?
I think it should.
[There's a slight problem:
As far as i know there are concrete plans/decisions
by rdf:core on rdfs:domain/range. There has been a long controversy on
rdf:interest about the meaning of multiple occurences and recent mailings
indicate the case might still not be completely settled. ]
>
> The namespace spec says that 'All DCMI namespace URIs will resolve to a
> machine-processable DCMI term declaration for all the terms within that
> namespace.' If we assume that RDF Schemas provides the machine-processable
> declaration, then we have to cover all terms, at least for that particular
> representation.
Agreed.
rs
|