Thomas wrote
>
> Thank you for raising this, Pete. This is essentially what
> I was trying to get at in an earlier posting:
>
> On October 17, Thomas Baker wrote:
> > A careful reader might wonder, with regard to to Figure 6 in
> > Appendix B, whether the following is intended:
> >
> > [resource URI] --dc:identifier--> [value URI] --rdfs:label--> "[resource URI]"
> >
> > ...where the URIs at both ends are identical.
A value of a dc:identifier is by definition "an unambiguous reference to the
resource in the given context."
A [value URI] IS a resource URI. The linguistic distinction between resource URI's and value
URI's is an illusion.
The direction of an arrow is giving subject and object of a statement...
rs
>
> After chewing on it a bit, my tentative and more simple-minded
> conclusion at the time was that the use of dc:identifier to
> hold a URI could simply be considered harmlessly redundant
> in an architecture that supported the identification of the
> subject resource with a URI. But now I'm not so sure...!
>
> I'm also not sure whether this is fundamentally a question
> of usage with respect to dc:identifier or a question of
> data model. I can think of reasons to discuss this issue in
> the Abstract Model; or in the Appendixes evaluating the RDF,
> XML, and XHTML encodings; or in the original RDF, XML, and
> XHTML specifications evaluated in the Appendixes. (But not
> all three!)
>
> Tom
>
> --
> 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]
>
>
|