In my role as co-chair of the DC-Registry WG, I would like to forward this
mail from Eric Miller to this group. Eric is putting forward a proposal
for a schema to express Dublin Core qualifiers in RDFS.
I for one think it is vital that DCMI can reach consensus on a
comprehensive and accurate expression of the semantics of the DCMI
vocabulary in RDFS (and other syntaxes).
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.
As I understand it DC Usage Board is responsible for the semantics of the
DCMI vocabulary, and DC-Architecture for expressing these semantics in any
syntax (both for for schema and instance metadata). So presumably in order
to agree a definitive expression of the vocabulary in RDFS both groups
need to liaise??
So I have forwarded Eric's mail to both groups (separately) and suggest
any discussion takes place on DC-Architecture, as it is accessible for
posting by all.
Rachel
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:51:50 -0500
From: Eric Miller <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Updated charter and WG web page
At 09:07 PM 2/13/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>I think this perhaps illustrates Rachel's point about controlling the
>content of the RDF Schemas indexed by the registry - and that is equally
>vital whether they are static text files edited "by hand" or files
>generated from a database.
I absolutely agree with Rachel and Pete about this, but I think we have
demonstrable proof of creeping into out-of-topic discussion threads :). I'd
appreciate feedback from the chairs if this is in scope or out. Seems to me
the focus of this group should be on registry requirements (which are
largely content independent).
If its the view of the chairs to have this discussion here (rather than
dc-usage, etc.) I took a crack at re-representing the DCQ document in a
more machine processable manner... if appropriate, comments are welcome.
- http://www.w3.org/2001/11/26/dcq
-
http://www.w3.org/2001/10/navigate/view?subject=http%3a//www.w3.org/2001/11/26/dcq%23
If the chairs feel that this should discussion should be done elsewhere
they have my permission to forward this message to the appropriate list.
--
eric miller http://www.w3.org/people/em/
semantic web activity lead mailto:[log in to unmask]
w3c world wide web consortium tel:1.614.763.1100
|