Print

---

(Partly because this has bothered me for ages and partly to try to
resuscitate discussion of the DCMI Abstract Model draft....)

The DCQ-RDF guidelines [1] and more recently the Abstract Model draft [2]
highlight that a "Vocabulary Encoding Scheme" is the type of the resource
which is the object/value of a statement.

If DocumentX has a subject from LCSH (i.e. the encoding scheme used is
dcterms:LCSH) then I say

my:documentX a dcmitype:Document .
my:documentX dc:subject my:subjectS .

my:subjectS a dcterms:LCSH .
my:subjectS rdf:value "some string" .

i.e. the type of the object/value of the dc:subject triple is dcterms:LCSH

Now suppose I want to express a relation between DocumentX and CollectionA
of which it is part then I say

my:documentX a dcmitype:Text .
my:documentX dcterms:isPartOf my:collectionA .

my:collectionA a dcmitype:Collection .

i.e. the type of the object/value of the dcterms:isPartOf triple is
dcmitype:Collection

And the inverse

my:collectionA a dcmitype:Collection .
my:collectionA dcterms:hasPart my:documentX .

my:documentX a dcmitype:Text .

i.e. the type of the object/value of the dcterms:hasPart triple is
dcmitype:Text

So does that mean dcmitype:Collection and dcmitype:Text (the type of the
object/value) are encoding schemes in these statements?

Are the "terms" (classes) in the DCMI Type Vocabulary all also encoding
schemes?

(Of course when those classes are used as the object/value of a dc:type
property, the encoding scheme in that statement is dcterms:DCMIType, not
dcmitype:Text or dcmitype:Collection)

Pete