 |
 |
> I'm confused by this. hasVersion and hasFormat are > refinements of dc:relation. How do they differ from hasStatus? I guess it comes down to naming conventions for existing DC elements/properties. Consider the difference between dcterms:hasFormat and dc:format (a parallel argument could be made for version, but we don't have a dc:version property) In the case of dcterms:hasFormat, the object of a statement using that property is a second resource of some unspecified type and that second resource "is a format of" the subject resource, in the sense that it is a representation of the same content in a different representational form; the object is _not_ a "resource of type Format" (assuming that class existed). In contrast, the object of a statement using the dc:format property could be a "resource of type Format", though I guess usually it's a literal. I agree that in a parallel universe DCMI _could_ have adopted a different naming convention for their properties and used "hasFormat" instead of "format" for the latter case (along with hasCreator, hasPublisher, hasSubject, hasType etc etc etc), and used something like "hasRelatedResourceWhichIsFormatOfThisResource" for the former case. But they haven't ;-) With the proposed "status" property, the object _would_ be a "resource of type Status" (or possibly/probably a literal) so it seems more consistent with existing DC convention to adopt someprefix:status, rather than someprefix:hasStatus. But when it comes down to it, it is a matter of convention. Pete