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? As I
> understand it we may well have one schema for all the DCMI
> vocabulary.... or one schema for 'elements' (including
> audience from terms namespace) and another for qualifiers??
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".
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), 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....
Pete
|