Pete wrote
>
> dc:identifier is defined as "An unambiguous reference to the resource
> within a given context".
>
> and
>
> dc:relation is defined as "A reference to a related resource."
>
> If (b) above applies (i.e. the value of dc:identifier is (always) an
> identifier (a resource of type some:Identifier)), and (as seems to me to
> be the case) the value of dc:relation is (usually) a resource of some
> type other than some:Identifier (unless I happen to be talking about an
> identifier as a related resource, but let's not, for the moment....),
> then there's no contradiction there. _But_ the current text of those
> definitions would probably lead me to expect both of those properties to
> take the _same_ class of resource as value.
Yes.
I don't by into the interpretation of
dc:identifier/dc:relation/dc:source to be range restricted
with literals.
Suppose you want to identify a human.
Quite often this is done by means of a (specific) passport.
Why one should treat passports as
literals?
In my view there is very little point in a priori limitations
with the resources, which possibly could come up as objects in
a variety application contexts.
When some application wants such restrictions, it should define
a subproperty of the dc property in question, which has a range
restriction.
That's one of the major points with application profiles to
restrict "usage".
The existing definitions of the dc properties can't be changed
in their semantics without compromising the vocabulary as such.
rs
>
> Pete
>
>
|