On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 02:19:21PM -0500, Tom Baker wrote:
> DescribedResourceID - new!
> ValueURI
> ValueID - new!
Section 2.4 of DCAM [1] notes:
Each non-literal value may be the described resource in a separate
description within the same description set - for example, a separate
description may provide metadata about the person that is the creator of
the described resource. A literal value can not be the described resource
in a separate description.
and Section 6 (Encoding Guidelines) says:
Encoding guidelines should indicate how a non-literal value can be treated
as a described resource in a separate description in those cases where a
non-literal value surrogate does not include a value URI.
In other words, the existing DCAM relegates handling of local identifiers
(blank-node identifiers) to Encoding Guidelines and does not include these
in the core Description Set Model.
If we assume that the Description Set Model should provide a full set of
required syntactic slots, however, then I should think we would want to put
such local identifiers into the core model. Again, I think we should take the
hint from DC-TEXT, which includes entities for ValueId and ResourceId [2] not
present in the DCAM Description Set Model itself.
Tom
[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/
[2] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-text/
--
Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>
|