> From [log in to unmask] Mon Feb 18 19:17 MET 2002
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
> Importance: Normal
> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 18:17:48 -0000
> From: Pete Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Resolving DCQ Schema problems
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Roland said:
>
> > > I'm in doubt whether the terms namespace is the most comfortable
> > > living room for the classes describung the ranges of dc-elements.
>
> Rachel said:
>
> > Are you not equating namespace with schema here?
Don't think so.
>
> I think the discussion _is_ actually in the first instance about the
> namespaces, not the schemas.
>
> I think Roland's reference (Roland - please correct me if I'm wrong!)
> was specifically to these "behind-the-scenes" classes - like
> "SubjectScheme" in the existing schema(s) and especially the suggested
> classes "SubjectTerm" or "admissibleAsSubject".
Yupp - exactly!
>
> Although these classes are useful (perhaps essential) in order to make
> certain sorts of statements, they are not actually "elements" or
> "refinements" in "vocabularies", or "encoding schemes", described in any
> of the DCMI specs, so it's not immediately clear (to me) to which (if
> any) of the existing namespaces they "belong".
>
> I think Roland was arguing that the general notion that, say,
> dc:subject, has a rdfs:range (i.e. it may be limited to sets of values)
> is already present in the DC 1.1 spec (it's mentioned in the "comment"),
> so it could be argued that the class "SubjectTerm" or
> "admissibleAsSubject" should be located in the
>
> http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
>
> namespace. The DCQ spec just builds on that idea to specify particular
> encoding schemes (subclasses of the class "SubjectTerm" or
> "admissibleAsSubject"). I hadn't thought of it quite like that before,
> but I can see the argument!
>
> As these classes are not DC "terms" in the sense that they are not
> defined in the DC 1.1 or DC Qualifiers documents (or approved by the
> Usage Board),
The UB may have to accept the modeling style.
> there may even be an argument that they do not belong in
> either of the namespaces
>
> http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
> http://purl.org/dc/terms/
>
> but that does beg the question of which namespace they _should_ be
> associated with....
Yes. These classes would need to be grounded somewhere. They need URI-references for
one needs to refer to them: They would be hit by at least to different properties:
rdfs:range and rdfs:subClassOf .
My argument is, that a normative rdf-schema asserting
it describes the content of the element/1.1/ recommendation already should
use them - if they are thought necessary at all.
The qualifiers rec does not impose (new) restrictions.
[Unspecified range is un-restricted range by default].
Best,
rs
>
> Pete
>
|