Douglas,
> dc:description seems the safest location given the looseness
> of the definition - people may choose an image that includes
> the collection name and a sense of the contents, or it may
> just be a pretty picture with no text included chosen at
> random to differentiate it amongst a list of collections. If
> it were to be under dc:title or dc:identifier, there would
> need to be a more specific scope/definition.
>
> I think it would be useful to add a comment that it is
> expected to be a URL to an image file (if that is the
> intention - I suppose it could be a sound logo??) so it would
> negate the need for dcterms:DCMIType=Image. Also the encoding
> scheme URI should be added to the AP.
>
> I'm thinking now that maybe it _is_ valid to include logo if
> we decide it is part of dc:description - resource discovery
> is allowed to include a description to assist the user to
> identify/select, why can't that description be visual?
> dc:description with encoding scheme URI isn't strong enough -
> that could just be a link to a webpage containing a
> description. Now "thumbnail" is quite a common concept,
> maybe it would be better to have a dcterms:thumbnail (refines
> dc:description) than cld:logo?? The DC CD AP would then call
> dcterms:thumbnail "logo".
OK, but regardless of whether we use
- the property dc:description:
my:collection dc:description my:logo .
- a new sub-property of dc:description
my:collection dcterms:thumbnail my:logo
dcterms:thumbnail rdfs:subpropertyOf dc:description
- a new property which is not a sub-property of dc:description
my:collection dcterms:thumbnail my:logo
in each case we are describing a relationship between a Collection and a
second resource, and that second resource is an image. A vocabulary
encoding scheme by definition describes the type of that second
resource, so the encoding scheme should be dcmitype:Image, not
dcterms:URI.
Pete
|