Dear Roland,
I agree with your summary.
This does not exclude the possibility that, at some point
in the future, DCMI (perhaps via an affiliate thereof) might
want to make stronger assertions about particular third-party
annotations or translations.
Tom
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 01:33:39PM +0100, Roland Schwaenzl wrote:
> let me try to express, what my understanding of the
> current state of the art is.
> Comments welcome! I choose "title" as example.
> [Please excuse the non-debugged English]
>
> http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title
>
> is THE dcmi choosen name (in the sense of RDF-MT)
> for a property [which is an item in an ISO standard]
> maintained by dcmi.
>
> That property comes with assertions about it
> authorized by dcmi (-usage) as such.
> If formulated in a human language they are
> formulated in US-en (labels, comments for instance).
>
> Third party may provide other assertions about this property
> (labels, comments for instance in other human languages) under
> that third party's authority.
>
> dcmi as such can not be held responsible in any respect for the
> correctness and appropriatness of third party assertions about
> the property.
>
> Nevertheless dcmi may choose to make third party's assertions
> accessible via the dcmi registry.
>
> dcmi WILL thereby clearly identify
> third party's primary responsibility for the making of the
> content of any of the assertions.
>
> Included is the case that some third party chooses a different name
> (in the sense of RDF-MT) for
> a property it asserts as equivalent with the dcmi maintained property.
--
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven mobile +49-160-9664-2129
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft work +49-30-8109-9027
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-144-2352
Personal email: [log in to unmask]
|