Andy Powell wrote:
> I note Misha's concerns about the implementation problems caused by our
> use of separate DC and DCTERMS namespaces.
>
> The draft revision to the namespace policy explicitly says
>
> Term URIs are grouped into DCMI namespaces in order to ease the
> assignment of URIs to terms and to streamline their use in particular
> encoding syntaxes
>
> yet we quite clearly haven't done this in the case of the DC and DCTERMS
> namespaces, where we have kept two namespaces simply for historical
> reasons.
>
> Under item 2, I will therefore suggest that we consider replicating all
> the current terms in the DC namespace into the DCTERMS namespace
> (allowing the use of a single namespace by many DC applications), using
> RDFS to explciitly declare equivalences between the old DC terms and the
> new DCTERMS terms.
All well and good, except that RDFS does not contain any such
mechanisms. Except possibly for mutual subProperty relations? Is that a
good idea? Or should we use OWL?
Also, a recommendation from DC regarding which of the two namespaces is
preferred would be very helpful.
/Mikael
--
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
|