> From [log in to unmask] Mon Feb 18 14:46 MET 2002
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
> Importance: Normal
> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 13:47:34 -0000
> From: Pete Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Resolving DCQ Schema problems
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Roland said:
>
> > One use the document makes of rdfs:range is to declare a range
> > Class for all dc-[element]s and specify the Class as [element]Scheme.
> >
> > That is (from the above) the admissible values for dc:subject for
> > instance must be members of the Class SubjectScheme.
> >
> > The document defines the Class SubjectScheme as a set of subject
> encoding
> > schemes.
> >
> > That is: The members of the Class are subject schemes and NOT items
> taken
> > from a specified subject encoding schemes.
> >
> > We only could use dc:subject in the metadata of resources, which
> explain ABOUT
> > subject encoding schemes.
> >
> > Huch! There is a slight chance i missing something.
>
> I think I agree with Roland's analysis....
>
> In Eric's schema at
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/11/26/dcq
>
> the relationship between the classes for the individual subject schemes
> (LCSH, MESH etc) and the class SubjectScheme is (correctly, I think)
> expressed as an rdf:type relation:
>
> dcterms:LCSH rdf:type dcterms:SubjectScheme .
>
> rather than a rdfs:subClassOf relation:
>
> dcterms:LCSH rdfs:subClassOf dcterms:SubjectScheme .
>
> which I think was/is incorrect in the schema at
>
> http://dublincore.org/2001/08/14/dcq
>
> However, as Roland says, it won't work to use the SubjectScheme class as
> the object of rdfs:range for dc:subject, will it?
>
> I wonder whether the object of rdfs:range would have to be a class
> "SubjectTerm" (or just "Subject"?) with rdfs:subClassOf relations
> between the LCSH, MESH etc classes and this new class?
>
> e.g. would something like this work?
very close, whith what i think ....
The dc:subject --rdfs:range--> "admissibleAsSubject"
dcterms:MESH --rdfs:subClassOf--> "admissibleAsSubject"
dcterms:MESH --rdf:type---> "SubjectScheme"
I'm in doubt whether the terms namespace is the most comfortable living room
for the classes describung the ranges of dc-elements.
These ranges are actually born in the elements/1.1/ recommendation. The qualifiers
rec does not place any restrictions on the use, but just specifies some
subClasses of the ranges and identifies them as traditional schemes.
So my option is to place these classes in an elements/1.1/ rdf-schema
[I'm rather openminded for the names of these classes]
cheers,
rs
-------
Ps.: I realised a typo in dcq-rdf-xml Example 2.3.12.2: It has dcterms, where
it's supposed to have dctype - sorry for that. I've send the fix to the web-team.
>
> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/subject">
> <rdfs:range
> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/11/26/dcq#SubjectTerm" />
Certainly we should have DC vocabulary defined on the DC website - rather
than on the w3 web-site.
> </rdf:Description>
>
> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2001/11/26/dcq#SubjectTerm">
> <rdfs:label>Subject Terms</rdfs:label>
> <rdfs:comment>A set of subject terms</rdfs:comment>
> <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/11/26/dcq#" />
> </rdfs:Class>
>
> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2001/11/26/dcq#SubjectScheme">
> <rdfs:label>Subject Encoding Schemes</rdfs:label>
> <rdfs:comment>A set of subject encoding schemes and/or
> formats</rdfs:comment>
> <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/11/26/dcq#" />
> </rdfs:Class>
>
> <dcq:SubjectScheme rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2001/11/26/dcq#LCSH">
> <rdfs:label>LCSH</rdfs:label>
> <rdfs:comment>Library of Congress Subject Headings</rdfs:comment>
> <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/11/26/dcq#" />
> <rdfs:subClassOf
> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/11/26/dcq#SubjectTerm" />
> </dcq:SubjectScheme>
>
> etc.
>
> Cheers
>
> Pete
>
