On 9/25/06, Pete Johnston <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks for the comments. I think Mikael did make a similar point way back when we initially discussed the idea of supporting a subset of the DCAM description model, and I must admit it had slipped my mind when we resuscitated the subset notion.
Sure. Just to clarify, my questions are in part connected to my work
with OpenDocument and the enhanced metadata work we are doing. We're
looking into offering a generalized and extensible metadata system
based on RDF, likely with a constrained XML syntax. More on this
later.
...
> But in the DC-XML-Min example the intent is that the fragment
>
> <dcxm:description dcxm:resourceURI="http://dublincore.org/pages/home">
> <dc:subject>History</dc:subject>
> </dcxm:description>
>
> represents a DC statement that says the resource has-as-subject is a resource of unspecified type, represented by the string "History", which in RDF would be represented by a blank node.
>
OK, but why this distinction? Why not just say the subject is in fact
a string literal?
> But I'm not convinced that would be sufficient, because the RDF/XML Property Element content generates triples with literal objects.
>
> I think we'd have to use something like
>
> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://dublincore.org/pages/home">
> <dc:subject rdf:parseType="Resource"><dcrdf:valueString>History</dcrdf:valueString></dc:subject>
> </rdf:Description>
>
> to get the blank node, but that reintroduces the child element that people objected to.
Again, I'm not clear why the blank node is important here.
Bruce
|