Andy,
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 09:04:54AM +0100, Andy Powell wrote:
> 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.
We agree. I have added a Status line of Recommended Resource
to the headers of [1], [2], and [3]; they will appear at the next
build (circa 14 September).
I have also added a "(SUPERSEDED, SEE...)" pointer to the title
of [4].
> 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 a status of 'Superceded Recommendations' or something?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.
Thank you for the suggestion - we will consider this.
In 2009, it feels needlessly fiddly to be editing HTML
headers by hand. I'd be interested to hear if anyone would like
to suggest a more comprehensive approach using, for example,
RDFa. We are in principle interested in doing this and would
need to get a better handle on the steps involved and how much
resources we would need.
Tom
[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/08/04/dc-html-notes/
[2] http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/01/14/dc-rdf-notes/
[3] http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/01/15/domain-range/
[4] http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2008/09/berlin/dcap-guidelines/
> ________________________________________
> 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
--
Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>
|