 |
 |
> From [log in to unmask] Thu Jun 7 10:41 MET 2001 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 09:41:17 GMT1BST > From: Ann Apps <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: DCMI namespace URIs > To: [log in to unmask] > > Andy Powell wrote: > > > > > http://purl.org/dc/type/ > > > > Again, the name of the DCMI Type vocabulary is DCMIType, therefore > > > > http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/ > > > > is better here, despite the apparent redundancy? > > > I agree that 'dcmitype' is better than 'type'. > > However, I am wondering why there is a specific namespace for > 'type'. Is it likely that there will be other DCMI vocabularies? If so > would each have their own namespace? Or should the namespace > cover all of them and be something like?: > > http://purl.org/dc/dcmivocab/ > > Maybe this is a non-problem, and 'type' is significantly different (ie. > more general use) than all other vocabularies which would belong in > domain specific namespaces? Formally speaking it's about adjunction, whether you put everything on one big pile or provide some segments. A nice example is 'type': There is a 'type' in dc, a 'type' in RDF, 'type(s)' arising in xml-schema (and....). Cheers rs > > If there is a specific namspace for 'type' vocabularies alone, would > it be better to refer to it as 'resource type' for slightly more clarity? > Eg: > > http://purl.org/dc/resourcetype/ > or > http://purl.org/dc/dcmiresourcetype/ > > (though the latter looks pretty dreadful when strung together! > Perhaps I should stay out of the mire :) ) > > Best wishes, > Ann > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Mrs. Ann Apps. Senior Analyst - Research & Development, MIMAS, > University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK > Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 6039 Fax: +44 (0) 0161 275 6040 > Email: [log in to unmask] WWW: http://epub.mimas.ac.uk/ann.html > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >