> From [log in to unmask] Thu May 30 12:12 MET 2002
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Disposition: inline
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i, Unixmail for Windows 0.6
> Date:         Thu, 30 May 2002 12:12:45 +0200
> From: Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject:      Re: What is a  text file -  use of standards.
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 08:06:36PM +0200, Roland Schwaenzl wrote:
> > > +++|   <rdf:Property rdf:about="http://purl.org/dc/terms/alternative">
> > > +++|     <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Alternative</rdfs:label>
> > > +++|     <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en">Any form of the title used as a substitute or
> > > +++|       alternative to the formal title of the resource.</rdfs:comment>
> > > +++|     <dc:description xml:lang="en">This qualifier can include Title
> > > +++|       abbreviations as well as translations.</dc:description>
> > > +++|     <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title"/>
> > > ---|     <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"/>
> > > +++|     <dcterms:issued>2000-07-11</dcterms:issued>
> > >    |   </rdf:Property>
> ..
> > > The RDFS representation lacks information on Status, Term Type,
> > > and Versioning (VMS-ID, Decision, Date modified, Supersedes).  If the
> > > schema is sufficient as support for RDF applications, this means that
> > > an RDF application would not need these things?
> >
> > It has dcq:modified, where modifications are known to the public.
> > As the integrity of applications requires existing terms never change semantics,
> > modifications are limited to changes of non-vital properties of the resources.
>
> I'm not following you here...  The RDFS term declaration for
> "alternative" (above) does not have dcterms:modified, only a
> dcterms:issued.  It is true that the namespace policy limits
> the scope of modifications to things that do not fundamentally
> alter the semantics of a term, but Section III of that policy
> also requires any change to a term declaration, no matter how
> trivial, to be reflected in versioning information: "In all
> (!) cases, any (!) changes to DCMI terms or term declarations
> will result in an update to the versioning information carried
> in the DCMI recommendation and/or DCMI term declaration
> associated with that term."  This is the guideline I have
> been following in developing the documentation posted at
> http://www.gmd.de/People/Thomas.Baker/usage/terms/dc/.
>
> > > According to http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema,
> > > "isDefinedBy" means "Indicates a resource containing and
> > > defining the subject resource".
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/01/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/#s2.3.5
>
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/#s2.3.5
>
> > should clarify your concern.
> > [It mentions dc explicitly].
>
> Hmm, I get "Sorry not found."
>
> > > I am confused because
> > > I think of "alternative" as being uniquely _identified_
> > > by the string http://purl.org/dc/terms/alternative but
> > > actually _defined_ and documented in the Web resource
> > > http://dublincore.org/usage/terms/dc/ (to be precise, at
> > > http://dublincore.org/usage/terms/dc/#alternative-002).
> >
> > DC has in a formal fashion defined, what it's namespace URI's
> > are. Before the DCMI namespace rec was made one could have
> > argued as you do. It's an advantage for DC to have this standard.
>
> This gets back to the basic distinction between "canonical"
> (or "authoritative" or "definitive") representations of DCMI
> terms and representations derived from the same, such as an
> RDF schema.
>

Not at all. RDF is not a miracle, but a spezified gadget -
just as XML Schema.

The schema is saying in it's metadata, which sources it uses.

>
>
> If I have correctly understood you (and Harry), the intention in
> creating an RDF schema is not to provide "the" definitive
> representation -- that is provided currently by Recommendation
> documents on the DCMI Web site, in the near future by the
> Usage-Board-maintained text files I am editing, and in the
> medium term perhaps by a VMS database -- but merely to present
> the definitive semantics in a form usable by RDF applications.
>
> > > > [This doesn't say, that all RDF applications will just use
> > > > such a slim version. ]
>
> Then I have correctly understood that this particular RDF
> schema is but one possible representation among others, even
> other RDF schemas.

Sure...the essential point is just, that the dc website should not
distribute RDF Schema, which make erronous assertions.
Most importantly it should not define resources in the namespaces,
which haven't been accepted by Usage.


>
> > > I am assuming that one could declare the "missing" information
> > > from my text description as RDF assertions as well...
> >
> > That's not the point.
> ..
> > How the vocabulary management system is supposed to
> > work internally is not my current business.
>
> If the RDF schema is not presented as, and does not declare
> itself to be, the canonical representation, then I agree that
> loading versioning information into that schema may indeed not
> be the point.
>

There is no such claim.

> However, I am very much concerned by the following construct,
> taken as a whole:
>
> 1) a Namespace Policy saying that DCMI terms are (in effect)
>    canonically identified by URIs; together with
>
> 2) a resolver that resolves the namespace URIs to an RDF
>    schema (as suggested by Harry); together with
>
> 3) an RDF schema in which each term declaration says it
>    "isDefinedBy" the very same namespace URI; and
>
Please: This is an RDF construct. Don't argue by English grammar.
That's not the one, which applies.


> 4) in which the term declarations do not declare or point to the
>    full historical versioning information of each term but in fact
>    present a subset of the fuller information derived from
>    some other set of documents or from a vocabulary management
>    system.
>
> To me, such a construct is misleading because it creates a
> self-referential circle, saying in effect that "DCMI declares
> this RDF schema to be _the_ definitive representation." Whereas
> -- as you have yourself confirmed -- the RDF schema is but "a"
> definitive representation.

NO! Please read the metadata (dc:source).

>
> If the semantics of "rdfs:isDefinedBy" dictate that it be used
> simply to point to the namespace within which the individual
> terms are situated, then "isDefinedBy" should by all means be
> used that way.  But in that case, in my opinion, the property
> declaration should include some sort of pointer to the
> definitive resource from which that particular representation
> was derived and where the versioning information may be found.

In case there is something the pointer goes to the relevant
Usage decision. I don't know to which other documents you want
to see a pointer. To the terms-latest.html ? That's just in draft
status - with wrong hyperlinks.

It took me a while to figure out some working URL's.
Also DC1.1 and the DCQ rec are not cited correctly.

This document will undergo changes till it
becomes stable. I find it rather confusing, that it doesn't
give dates.


In case terms-latest converges there will be no problem to add pointers.





rs
>
> Tom
>
> --
> Dr. Thomas Baker                                [log in to unmask]
> Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven          mobile +49-171-408-5784
> Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft                          work +49-30-8109-9027
> 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany                     fax +49-2241-14-2619
>