Quoting Antoine Isaac <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> However in order to embrace linked data I would definitively try *not*
> to put a clearer specification of rdf:value on top of the list. You
> will almost never need them, just as in your own cases! And as said at
> the top of the mail the specification does not allow you to put formal
> constraints. You can just try to promote practices which are useful to
> the community, and which hopefully will become best practices.
Sorry, I realize I wasn't clear. I'm advocating that our own metadata
(whether DC or some other metadata like foaf) have clear guidance.
Guidance is at a community level, but we can also define our community
broadly, as DC has done. DC's RDF makes use of rdf:value, so it should
be possible to provide guidance about that particular usage, or to
offer alternatives if that is the intention. Over at the LLD activity
(to which this discussion is now very relevant) I think we should set
as a goal that our metadata best practices be as clear and simple as
possible so that they can be implemented by users with a wide range of
expertise. This may mean giving up on some subtleties, but that is all
in the interest of getting our job done. This should resonate with the
DC community, who, at least up until its adoption of RDF principles,
followed the KISS philosophy. Now the question is: can we KISS and use
RDF? I sure hope so.
kc
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
|