Hi!
I'm trying to get to a conclusion on som of the remaining issues in the
DC RDF draft [1].
The ambition is to produce a draft for public comment during the
following weeks. I'd like to sort out most of the comments from this
list before then.
The current list of issues is at [2]. My proposed solutions are:
Issue 1: Datatypes.
==================
When:
* The VES is an rdfs:Datatype or equals rdfs:Literal.
* There is only one value string
* There is no language tag on the value string
* The SES of the value string is a subClass or equals the VES of
the value.
* There are no rich value representations
* There are no related descriptions.
a datatyped literal or plain literal can be used.
Plain literals correspond to VES=SES=rdfs:Literal.
Issue 2: Value string property
==============================
A property dcrdf:valueString, sub-property of rdf:value with
rdfs:Literal range and improved definition.
Issue 4: Rich representations
=============================
Use rdfs:seeAlso. Mention explicitly the use of XMLLiteral, otherwise
recommend use of URI ref to separate resource.
Issue 5: Related descriptions
=============================
Two cases:
* Nodes (anonymous or not) within same RDF document. RDF handles
this case.
* External description. This would not be supported.
If you have any comments at this point regarding these issues, please
comment now. You will get a second chance during the public comment
period, but please make yourself heard as early as possible.
/Mikael
[1] http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/DCRDFGuidelines
[2] http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/DCRDFTaskforce/DCRDFIssues
--
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
|