On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Andy Powell wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Roland Schwaenzl wrote:
>
> > > I'm simply observing that anyone that you choose to
> > > list as being a dc:creator is 'by definition' also a dc:contributor (based
> > > on the DCMI element definitions).
> >
> > Think i would have been killed right away expressing such a
> > view in machine understandable form in an RDF schema declaring
> > DC stuff.
>
> Of course, because we have never had a public discussion about it that
> reached any concensus - that's why we're discussing it now on the list.
>
> If you had simply written it into an RDF schema that would not have been
> based on any sort of DCMI decision.
Here's a way of formulating the question:
Can there ever be a pair of things x,y where x has a dc:creator y,
yet we don't also consider y to be a dc:contributor of x?
(hmm, that's inelegantly worded, but you get the idea...)
If by the already agreed DCMI definitions for dc:creator, dc:contributor
we are confident that no such counter examples exist, we could/should
write down that dc:contributor is a sub-property of dc:creator. The
sub-property relationship was created as a way of documenting situations
like this.
Dan
--
mailto:[log in to unmask]
http://www.w3.org/People/DanBri/
|