[This isn't a reply to Tom's concerns about the "scope" of what Andy and
I called "Simple DC" so I have changed the subject line]
Tom said:
> I had been assuming this was not Andy and Pete's intent.
> Rather, I had been reading the statement "Each property must
> be one of the 15 DCMES elements" as shorthand for something
> more generic (and pedantic-sounding!) along the lines of:
> "Each property must be one of the top-level elements of
> 'cross-domain' status in the DCMI metadata vocabulary. At
> present, the set of all top-level elements of 'cross-domain'
> status happens to be co-terminous with DCMES."
And
> IMHO, it ["Simple DC"] should refer to the set of top-level elements
> with cross-domain status.
This occurred to me ages ago and I forgot to post it.....
I think if we need to make distinctions between elements which are in
one of the DCMI namespaces on the basis of their "status" (e.g.
"cross-domain" v "domain-specific"... Not sure if there are other
options?!), in addition to whether they are elements or refinements,
then we need this information explicitly recorded in the RDF schema
descriptions of the terms in those namespaces.
The "top-level" element/element refinement distinction can be derived
from the statements made about a term using rdfs:subPropertyOf, but at
the moment (or at least the last time I looked!) there is no record of
"status" in a machine-readable form.
I'm not sure whether there are any other properties of terms which
should be recorded, but looking at e.g. the record of Usage Board
decisions regarding the acceptance of audience/mediator/conformsTo at
http://dublincore.org/usage/decisions/2001/education-01.shtml
I think the only omission from the data in the RDF schemas is "status"?
Pete
|