 |
 |
Just catching up.... thanks for all the discussion, BTW... Patrick said: > I'd say that the RDFS *contains* or *includes* a > representation of a DCMI namespace, or XML namespace, but > that it says a whole lot more that is not embodied in the > namespace itself, since the namespace is simply a set of > names and a representation would not embody more than an > enumeration of those names, in some fashion. [snip] > Still, if one takes a rather loose view that dereferencing a > namespace URI may provide a representation of the namespace, > but not necessarily limited *only* to a representation of > the namespace alone, then we're probably OK. Wow... now that is subtle! But I think I like it.... Also... > A namespace is nothing but a set of names. A namespace includes > *nothing* about how those names are used. A namespace imparts > no semantics whatsoever to the names residing in that namespace. OK, but (I think) this paragraph is referring to "namespace" in the sense of "XML Namespace". I think my question yesterday was whether "DCMI namespace" as defined in [1] was (perhaps unintentionally!) in fact being used to mean something slightly different from an "XML namespace" i.e. - a collection of _terms_ (rather than just names), where a term is a DC element (not XML element), element refinement or encoding scheme (i.e. not just a name-without-semantics but a concept-with-semantics ) On this basis, I think the "semantic surplus" in the RDF/XML representation is much less of a problem if that RDF/XML document is regarded as a representation of a "DCMI namespace". Pete [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/2001/10/26/dcmi-namespace/