Hi Kai,
That is interesting. There's still something that makes me wondering about these DC-in-RDF efforts though: is the idea really to have DCAM as an RDF vocabulary, on the same level as SKOS and others?
I see the intellectual value of it, but that remind me a bit about some exercises I've seen of representing, say, RDFS in RDFS (pointers must be findable, but it's no use bothering everyone with that now). It seems quite artificial, and not really needed.
In fact to be fair I can see some real value, when one wants to reify DC descriptions & statements: it's probably a valid use case, especially in the provenance context. Just like reification in RDF: rdf:Statement, rdf:subject, etc...
But (and maybe it's a better re-phrasing of my criticism above) it could be confusing to focus readers' attention to this now.
Is it worth putting a bit caveat or "scope of the document"section in front of that wiki page?
Cheers,
Antoine
> Hi all,
>
> I just updated the wiki page with the results of a brainstroming session in Dagstuhl[1] last week:
>
> http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/DCAM_Revision_Tech
>
> I merged in the contents of DC-RDF to see if we hit on any conflicts. So far it seems to work. The document is a little messy, sorry for that. I hope I find the time to clean it up and of course work further on it this week.
>
> Main change: The graph container is now the description set, descriptions would not be a class in RDF, they are only implicitely defined based on the notion of statements with the same subject.
>
> Interesting question: What happens to the record? Again this seems to be a question that relates to similar questions in the RDF community: How to distinguish the content from the serialization. It would be interesting to keep it somehow, but maybe it will belong rather to best-practice than to DCAM.
>
> On a side note, I would like to mention that we started in Dagstuhl with a mapping between DC-Terms and the upcoming PROV ontology [2]. This will be discussed on the DCPROV mailinglist and is a joint effort between the DCMI Metadata Provenance TG and the W3C Provenance Working Group.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kai
>
> [1] http://www.dagstuhl.de/no_cache/en/program/calendar/semhp/?semnr=12091
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDCMapping
>
|