Sorry...
s/are clearly enough distinguished/are not clearly enough distinguished/
Andy
________________________________________
From: DCMI Architecture Forum [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andy Powell [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 03 September 2009 09:04
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: rdfs:range for dcterms:subject and other "open-range" properties
Looking at this stuff from afar (or at least from further away than I used to), coupled with typically finding stuff via Google searches which don't necessarily throw up the expected stuff first, I think it would be helpful to be explicit about the status of these (and indeed all) documents. So... if "Domains and Ranges for DCMI Properties", [1] and [2] are seen as being recommended (in some sense) by DCMI then explicitly flagging them as Recommended Resources seems sensible to me.
For the record, I find it very odd that old versions of Recommendations, e.g. http://dublincore.org/documents/2005/03/07/abstract-model/, are still flagged as being Recommendations - shouldn't they be given a status of 'Superceded Recommendations' or something? My gut feeling is that current and old versions of things are clearly enough distinguished and that changing the status of old recommendations would help.
Andy
________________________________________
From: DCMI Architecture Forum [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Thomas Baker [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 02 September 2009 17:05
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: rdfs:range for dcterms:subject and other "open-range" properties
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 01:16:38PM +0200, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> > > With no intented hair-splitting, in which document is it formally
> > explicited?
> >
> > I?m looking at
> >
> > http://dublincore.org/documents/domain-range/
> >
>
> Ah, indeed, but it's not in sync on this at least with
> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms which has a "DCMI Recommendation"
> status, whereas the above has no declared status at all, neither has, BTW,
> the RDF schema at http://dublincore.org/2008/01/14/dcterms.rdf, a fact I'm
> very surprised to discover. I thought DC was better at eating its own dog
> food. [?]
>
> <http://dublincore.org/documents/domain-range/>
> >
> > (but I confess to being somewhat out of date with my knowledge of the
> > status of any of these documents).
>
> Hmm ... that seems to be a shared feeling around here ...
"Domains and Ranges for DCMI Properties" is analogous to "Notes
on DCMI specifications for Dublin Core metadata in HTML/XHTML
meta and link elements" [1] and "Notes on DCMI specifications
for Dublin Core metadata in RDF" [2] inasmuch they provide
additional explanation and context to normative specifications
(in this case, for [3], [4], and [5]).
Nobody has ever commented on their lack of a clear status, that
I can recall. Under our current process [6], they could be DCMI
Recommended Resources. Any other suggestions for clarifying
their status, such as adding a line of explanation to the
document description, are most welcome.
Tom
[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-html-notes/
[2] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-rdf-notes/
[3] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/
[4] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-html/
[5] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-rdf/
[6] http://dublincore.org/documents/approval/
--
Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>
Eduserv has moved office! For details visit www.eduserv.org.uk/contacts
Eduserv has moved office! For details visit www.eduserv.org.uk/contacts
|