fre 2006-03-31 klockan 12:02 +0200 skrev Thomas Baker:
> > 3.
> > "The two legacy specifications differ with regard to whether a
> > dc:creator or dc:contributor is a person (i.e., an entity), or a name
> > (i.e., a string). In "DC-Simple-in-RDF", a dc:creator is a name:"
> >
> > We need to make sure that the issue is not limited to
> > creator/contributor.
>
> How about:
>
> The two legacy specifications differ in many ways. One
> particularly important difference has to do with dc:creator
> and dc:contributor are handled -- whether they are
> represented in a modeling sense as persons (i.e., entities)
> or as names (i.e., strings). In "DC-Simple-in-RDF"...
No, not really ... :-)
My point was that dc:creator/contributor were not the only properties
affected - for example dc:date will also be affected. More like
"The two legacy specifications differ with regard to whether properties
such as dc:creator or dc:date have values that are resources (e.g., a
Person or a Date), or a string representing the resource (i.e., a value
string). In "DC-Simple-in-RDF", a dc:creator is a name:"
or similar.
>
> > 5.
> > "The range "Literal" would be reserved for metadata terms which are
> > typically associated with value strings, such as dc:title."
> >
> > Actually, we have not committed to restricting dc:title to literal
> > values at this point. In fact, we are considering leaving the range open
> > to allow for, for example, variants of the "same" name described by a
> > single statement using multiple value strings (with different languages,
> > for example).
>
> How about:
>
> If it is used at all, the range "Literal" would apply only
> to metadata terms which are typically associated with value
> strings, such as dc:title.
That's fine for the moment.
> > 7.
> > "to ensure the long-term viability of Dublin Core in RDF."
> >
> > Note that the issue is limited to RDF. The other DC syntaxes are *not*
> > affected by the issue.
> >
> > (Except possibly some Vocabulary Encoding Schemes will need to be made
> > sub-classes of the range of the respective property?)
>
> Is that just a parenthetical note, or are you proposing a change
> in wording -- have left the same for now...
Not a change in wording, no. Just a note that as we introduce classes
for ranges, we might want to add sub-class relations to some of the
existing VESs.
/Mikael
>
> Tom
>
--
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
|