Yes, Pete, that is exactly what I was saying. We have not asserted
jurisdiction to be a subproperty of dc:coverage. I am fairly sure at
the moment that the need for clarity in making jurisdictional statements
means I'm not about to make such an assertion any time soon :).
Stuart
-----Original Message-----
From: A mailing list for the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative's Usage
Board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pete Johnston
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 7:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Something to look at re: Coverage
Andrew,
> Yes, that's what I should have written and reflects how I have always
> interpreted coverage.
But according to the AGLS spec
http://www.naa.gov.au/recordkeeping/gov_online/agls/metadata_element_set
.html
agls:jurisdiction is defined as a refinement (subproperty) of
dc:coverage.
That means that every time you say
thing:x agls:jurisdiction some:place .
you imply
thing:x dc:coverage some:place .
So the use of dc:coverage in AGLS _does_ imply that dc:coverage extends
to jurisdiction/applicability too, and it is not limited to "aboutness".
What I understood Stuart to be saying the other day was that his
application used some:jurisdiction _without_ asserting the
refinement/subproperty relation - precisely because they believed that
dc:coverage was strictly for "aboutness" and such a subproperty
assertion would be inconsistent.
Pete
|