Hi Tom,
> In reviewing this for the call, I'm wondering if the problem
> is indeed only with the notion of "numeric identifier" (given
> that sets of coordinates and date ranges can be modeled as
> non-literal resources). If so, then one might proceed as with
> the CCP properties and simply delete the words "numeric
> identifiers such as" from the comment. Instead of:
>
> Where appropriate, named places or time periods can be used in
> preference to numeric identifiers such as sets of
> coordinates or date
> ranges.
>
> to read:
>
> Where appropriate, named places or time periods can be used in
> preference to sets of coordinates or date ranges.
Doesn't that leave a similar "not comparing like-with-like" problem?
A "set of coordinates" is something which specifies/describes/identifies
(or something like that!) a place (named or unnamed), but a set of
coordinates isn't the same sort of thing as a place.
I can see the logic of saying that a "set of coordinates" is used in
preference to the _name_ of a place: they are both means of
specifying/describing/labelling/identifying the place. But I struggle to
understand how a set of coordinates can be substituted for a place
itself.
The range of the property here is the class
dcterms:LocationPeriodOrJurisdiction: (I think) that includes places
(named or unnamed), but not place names or "sets of coordinates".
Pete
---
Pete Johnston
Technical Researcher, Eduserv
[log in to unmask]
+44 (0)1225 474323
http://www.eduserv.org.uk/research/people/petejohnston/
http://efoundations.typepad.com/
|