 |
 |
> From [log in to unmask] Tue Dec 11 23:02 MET 2001 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Priority: 3 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 > Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 22:03:21 -0000 > From: Pete Johnston <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: FW: Problem with our RDF schemas > To: [log in to unmask] > > Harry said: > > > I think this is a better approach than using eor:schema. > > I was arguing that to an RDF application it's exactly the same.... ;-) It is the same RDF model - you just changed it's syntactical expression in RDF/XML. > > So I think your concern is for the human reader being confused/deterred by > the use of an unfamiliar namespace and/or namespace prefix? > > I _do_ think that may well be a valid concern, but we need to be clear about > what problem we're addressing. I don't understand this. > > > Should it be > > > > <rdf:Description rdf:ID="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"> > > > > though, rather than > > > > <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">? > > I'm inclined to say in this case it's the latter (i.e. use rdf:about rather > than rdf:ID). > > However, sorry to harp on about this point..... I think I need to be > completely clear about what resource is being described here. I think the > inclusion of > > <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13/eor#Schema"/> > > perhaps helps to remove ambiguity, but I'm not altogether sure it's > sufficient.... rdf:ID cannot be used in this context. > > What resource are we seeking to describe in this set of statements in the > "administrative metadata"? > > The namespace (in the abstract)? The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set? > (Maybe these first two are the same....?) Or are we describing the document > (an RDF Schema) in which the metadata is embedded? > > I'm looking at the RDF schema which describes the EOR vocabulary, which is > at > > http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13/eor > > The description of the class http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13/eor#Schema > (i.e. eor:Schema) which I find there is: > > <rdfs:Class rdf:about="http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13/eor#Schema"> > <rdfs:label>RDF Schema</rdfs:label> > <rdfs:comment>A RDF schema</rdfs:comment> > <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text" /> > <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13/eor#" /> > </rdfs:Class> > > So, a resource of type eor:Schema is also a resource of type text and "the > human readable description" (rdfs:comment) of this description of the class > eor:Schema tells me it's "a RDF Schema". > > (Roland, in answer to your follow-up question, this is where I - as a human > reader - find the answer to what http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13/eor#Schema > means, but I'm less sure what a program could do with that information as > it's "just" an rdfs:comment). Dear Pete, i was not arguing against an RDFS declaration of a Schema class. I'm more concerned about, why we do not try to make it a dc term. Literal values are for human consumption - A browser will display exposed literal values in case you embed RDF in (X)HTML. Cheers rs > > Cheers > > Pete >