On Tue, 2002-06-04 at 09:56, Wagner,Harry wrote:
> Dear WG Members,
> My apologies for the cross-post.
>
> The current version of the DC Registry
> (http://wip.dublincore.org:8080/dcregistry/index.html) was updated this
> morning with the versions of the DC RDF schemas that Roland Schwaenzl has
> been working on
> (http://www.mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de/projects/dcqual/qual21.3.1/Schema/A
> /). I consider this a significant improvement over the version of the
> schemas we had previously imported. They solve several of the data-related
> problems we have labored over, and, most importantly, I believe they
> accurately reflect Usage Board decisions. Thanks Roland - nice work!
I've loaded these vocabularies in
http://www.w3.org/2001/10/navigate/ as a quick independent test of the
data. Quick scan looks good...
e.g.
http://www.w3.org/2001/10/navigate/view?subject=http%3a//purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
http://www.w3.org/2001/10/navigate/view?subject=http%3a//purl.org/dc/terms/
http://www.w3.org/2001/10/navigate/view?subject=http%3a//purl.org/dc/dcmitype/
A (slightly) more detailed scan, however, raises a concern with respect
to encoding schemes and their associated properties. In short it looks
like there is none. Is it the assumption that the 'references' relation
between encoding schemes and associated properties define this binding?
e.g.
http://www.w3.org/2001/10/navigate/view?subject=http%3a//purl.org/dc/terms/SpatialScheme
Is this relationship intentional? If so, can someone explain what this
is relationship is supposed to convey?
--
eric miller http://www.w3.org/people/em/
semantic web activity lead http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/
w3c world wide web consortium http://www.w3.org/
|