Mikael,
Thanx, I found it a lot easier to read, I hope others do too...
I agree the appendix A example descriptions are a lot longer now, but I think it helps when you can directly relate each individual part of the "real world" description to how it is encoded - most people are really just looking for examples to hack!
Um, I just wanted to check whether a commonly used existing construct will still be possible under the proposal. The construct includes terms from vocabulary encoding schemes that are strings (ie. aren't URIs) and have associated labels for display, eg. we used to [probably incorrectly] do:
<dc:subject>
<dcterms:DDC>
<rdf:value>500</rdf:value>
<rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Science</rdfs:label>
</dcterms:DDC>
</dc:subject>
This seems to be similar to your "EA32" example, except you have a different URI for the vocabulary and syntax encoding schemes. Is it OK to use the same URI twice (ie. use a vocabulary URI as a syntax encoding URI). I guess it depends on whether the encoding scheme also defines the syntax - it may be stretching it a bit, but you could probably argue most do (eg. DDC is a decimal number (greater than or equal to 100) plus letters, RFC3066 language is 2-3 letters plus optional hyphen and more letters, LCSH is alphnumerics/punctionation/hyphens, etc.).
The current RDF for dcterms:DDC only gives it a general type of encoding-scheme (not which sub-type of "vocabulary" or "syntax" it is):
<dcterms:SubjectScheme rdf:about="http://purl.org/dc/terms/DDC">
<rdfs:label xml:lang="en-US">DDC</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:comment xml:lang="en-US">Dewey Decimal Classification</rdfs:comment>
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class" />
<rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" />
<rdfs:seeAlso rdf:resource="http://www.oclc.org/dewey/index.htm" />
<dcterms:issued>2000-07-11</dcterms:issued>
<dcterms:modified>2002-06-15</dcterms:modified>
<dc:type rdf:resource="http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/principles/#encoding-scheme" />
<dcterms:hasVersion rdf:resource="http://dublincore.org/usage/terms/history/#DDC-002" />
</dcterms:SubjectScheme>
So my DDC 500 example might become?:
<dc:subject>
<dcterms:DDC>
<dcrdf:valueString rdf:datatype="http://purl.org/dc/terms/DDC">500</dcrdf:valueString>
<dcrdf:valueString xml:lang="en">Science</dcrdf:valueString>
</dcterms:DDC>
</dc:subject>
Douglas
>>> [log in to unmask] 24/05/06 04:10:47 >>>
I have reacted to the comment I've gotten so far, and here's an updated
draft:
http://kmr.nada.kth.se/~mini/dc-rdf/2006-05-23/
the old one is here for comparison:
http://kmr.nada.kth.se/~mini/dc-rdf/2006-05-15/
The major changes are:
* Restructuring of descriptive text in section 5, first two subsections.
* Addition of summary of RDF features.
Unless anything shows up in a few days, this will more or less be what
will go out for public comment.
/Mikael
|