On mån, 2007-02-26 at 09:25 +0100, Ivan Herman wrote:
> As has been told many times, the usage of DC is today so widespread that
> the Library community is only a part of (and maybe even a fraction of)
> the user community. According to some estimates, after the core SW
> namespaces (rdf, rdfs, owl), the DC namespace is the largest single
> namespace used on the Semantic Web. We should not forget that.
>
> I think our options here are:
>
> 1. the ranges are *not* restricted. Ie, one could use datatypes
> directly, or more complex solutions
> 2. the ranges are defined with the help of OWL's union facility. This
> union should refer to the xsd datatypes that we want for a specific
> predicate, plus more complex classes that are required/used by the
> library community.
Actually, I think you might have missed the precise details of what we
are proposing...
The current set of 15 properties in the http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
namespace (traditionally dc:) will *not* be given ranges and domains.
Instead, these 15 properties will be copied to the
http://purl.org/dc/terms/ namespace (traditionally dcterms: or dcq:).
These "new" terms will be given domains and ranges, and will be made
subproperties of the dc: terms. The existing terms in the dcterms:
namespace will also be affected, but their use is far less widespread.
So, any use of the old dc: terms will fall under your option 1. above,
i.e. no restriction. At the same time, DCMI will recommend (but not
require) the use of the newer terms. In the long term, that will
hopefully mean than more and more uses of Dublin Core will make use of
the semantically richer terms in the dcterms: namespace (as well as
unifying all terms in a single namespace).
>
> Frankly, I do not see any other solution. The current approach, in my
> view, penalizes a large user community...
The DCMI community has struggled with this exact issue for a few years
now. The hope is that this compromise leads to the best of both worlds.
Of course, feedback on that is more than welcome!
/Mikael
>
> Ivan
>
> Diane I. Hillmann wrote:
> > Bruce:
> >
> > In library-land, named dates/periods are the rule, rather than the
> > exception. Occasionally the labels include dates as well as names (as
> > part of the same string), but the intention is to be human readable.
> >
> > I think the same situation extends to museums.
> >
> > Diane
> >
> >> On Feb 21, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Pete Johnston wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think one of the reasons for proposing non-literal ranges is that
> >>> implementers have occasionally wanted to use human-readable labels for
> >>> dates/periods e.g.
> >>
> >>
> >> But emphasis on "occasionally" yes? It's not standard practice by any
> >> stretch.
> >>
> >> Bruce
> >
> >
> >
>
--
<[log in to unmask]>
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
|