tis 2009-09-01 klockan 20:09 +0200 skrev Dan Brickley:
> If there are no reasonable values for dcterms:subject which aren't
> also in the class SKOS called "Concept", then this is OK.
Well, the subject of a resource can certainly be the city of Paris, and
I've seen strong consensus over the years that cities, persons etc are
valid values of the property, i.e. that the range is essentially all
non-literals.
So from that point of view, I would say that Bernards suggestion is
technically valid.
/Mikael
>
> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-subject
> "The topic of the resource."
> "Typically, the subject will be represented using keywords, key
> phrases, or classification codes. Recommended best practice is to use
> a controlled vocabulary."
> " This term is intended to be used with non-literal values as defined
> in the DCMI Abstract Model
> (http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/). As of December
> 2007, the DCMI Usage Board is seeking a way to express this intention
> with a formal range declaration."
>
> This definition seems to allow in, just about, the use of a URI for a
> thing directly. Eg. if Paris the city is a topic of some document, we
> could perhaps write dcterms:subject and then a URI for the city.
>
> If the DC usage board doesn't feel this habit quite fits with the
> intent, then I suggest it's definition pretty much is the same as
> SKOS's notion of Concept, and there would be no harm to assert a range
> of skos:Concept.
>
> Note that asserting such a range doesn't force you to actually use
> SKOS alongside DC, or for the concept mentioned to have a
> derferenceable URI, or for there to be SKOS at the end of the link,
> etc.
>
> Are there any candidate examples of things that reasonably aren't skos
> Concepts, yet are good values for dcterms:subject?
>
> cheers,
>
> Dan
>
|