Hi Dan,
> Question: what is the most modern, recommended way to express these
> string valued properties?
>
> <meta property="dc:creator" content="Office of Management and
> Budget"/>
> <meta property="dc:publisher" content="General Services
> Administration"/>
>
> I've heard Tom mention the 1.1 ns as deprecated,
In
http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/
they are referred to as "legacy". I don't think the intent is to say
they are "deprecated".
> and that the terms ns is the thing to use. If that's the case, what's
the preferred
> idiom for string-valued properties? Do we use an intermediate node?
How
> does that look in RDFa?
Some of the dcterms:* properties are still usable with literal values
e.g. some of them have a literal range
For things like the agent properties in dcterms:*, yes, the intent is
that they are used with an intermediate (blank or URI) node.
I'm a bit of a noob with RDFa (so please, someone, shout if I'm wrong on
this) but to do it in the XHTML header, using meta/link elements, I
think you'd have to do something "two-part" like:
<link rel="dcterms:creator" resource="[_:x]" />
<meta about="[_:x]" property="rdf:value" content="John Smith" />
In the body of the document, I think there's a bit more flexibility, and
you could use what RDFa calls chaining
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#sec_5.3.
and do
<div rel="dcterms:creator">
<span property="rdf:value">John Smith</span>
</div>
Those both seem to give the desired result from the W3C RDFa Distiller.
I think the fact that link and meta are empty elements (at least in
XHTML 1.0) means the chaining convention can't be applied in the header
(but again, please shout if that is wrong).
Pete
|