Patrick said:
> It seems to me that there are two primary uses of rdf:value
> in DC, one for datatyped values and another for controlled
> code sets. Typed literals in the new RDF specs handles the
> first case, and a URI based approach such as above would more
> optimally handle the second (since the values in question are
> resources about which additional statements must be made,
> such as label).
>
> One metric I've employed for some time is that, if a value
> needs a label, or is a member of a controlled set, use a URI
> to denote the value.
>
> Given the fact that rdf:value has no semantics defined in the
> MT, and is, while not deprecated, also has no normative
> interpretation defined, opting for typed literals for
> datatype values and URIs for controlled termset values seems
> a better way to go.
Sounds reasonable!
I guess one of the issues is "political" more than technical, in that
most of the controlled termsets specified as DC encoding schemes are
owned/managed by agencies other than DCMI - and perhaps this is a slight
difference from the LOM case?
DCMI has specified URIs for naming the termsets as a whole e.g.
http://purl.org/dc/terms/LCSH/ , but has stopped short of specifying
URIs for individual values within those termsets on the grounds (at
least partly, I imagine?) that the convention for identifying those
values is really the responsibility of the agencies owning the termsets?
Pete
|