Dear all,
I have read your comments about R-1 http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=node/1).
Your conclusion was that the requirement was about:
-not describing of same resource in different place (is nothing for RDF: it's more about structuring of files)
I think I see what you mean by this requirement and we could need it in the context of Europeana. However I have not included it in my initial list of requirements because I thought it was to related too the way Europeana has implemented EDM (as RDF-XML) rather than being about RDF validation.
To me R1 is more related to the fact that every object should have their own distinct URIs and that it is therefore not possible to assign two URIs to the same object or the same URI to different objects. This requirement fits perfectly what we want in EDM.
Let's wait for Stefanie's comment.
Best,
Valentine
________________________________________
From: Antoine Isaac [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 12 June 2015 20:06
To: DCMI Architecture Forum; Ruehle, Stefanie; Valentine Charles
Subject: Re: [RDF AP] Fixing some RDF AP requirements
Hi,
Thanks a lot to Lars and Karen for the great feedback!
I've done changes that reflect hopefully the discussion, both on the database [1] and the wiki list [2]
The only one requirement that is still unclear is R-1 (the first will be last ;-) ) "Validate for uniqueness of URIs"
Valentine, Stefanie, I'd be curious to have your opinion on this [3]!
Cheers,
Antoine
[1] http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=requirements/dc-requirements
[2] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF_Application_Profiles/Requirements
[3]https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=DC-ARCHITECTURE;8c92de00.1506
On 6/8/15 9:49 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Dear group members,
>
> About the action:
> [
> ACTION: Antoine to look at unclear requirements in Hugo's email
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=DC-ARCHITECTURE;6a1f19cb.1505
> ]
>
> Hugo and I had a discussion about Hugo's mail.
> The outcome is the list of suggestions (and questions) below.
>
> I'd like to ask you to review and give input. Especially, please object if you disagree with the suggestions. Otherwise I'll implement them next week.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
|