Rachel said:
> 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.
I think strictly speaking Eric's schema at
http://www.w3.org/2001/11/26/dcq
is a representation of those qualifiers defined/described in the
recommendation "Dublin Core Qualifiers". i.e. the document at
http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmes-qualifiers/
There are already other qualifiers "in the terms namespace":
(a) the recently added top-level term "audience" was accompanied by an
element refinement (qulifier) of "audience", "mediator". Future new
"top-level" elements added to the terms namespace may also have element
refinements (qualifiers).
(b) "conformsTo" was added as an element refinement of "relation". Other
element refinements of existing terms "in the DC namespace"
(http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/) may be added in the future.
So, as I think was raised already, we need some clarity and precision
about what we mean when we use terms like "the Dublin Core qualifiers"
or "Qualified DC".
Cheers
Pete
|