 |
 |
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, Pete Johnston wrote: > Andy said: > >> For various reasons, discussion of the issue was not carried >> thru to a position of concensus of any kind. In the run up >> to DC2004, and in an effort to rekindle discussion about this >> issue, I've knocked together a brief discussion paper that >> summarises the issue (at least as I see it) and which >> proposes 5 alternative ways forward. >> >> Modelling DC values as resources in RDF >> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/rdf-values/ >> >> I'd be >> interested to hear people's views (agreement >> or disagreement) on the paper and its conclusions, >> suggestions for alternative ways forward or >> (frankly) anything else relevent to this issue. > > I don't think Option 4 - "convince the wider Semantic Web community that > the two graphs above are semantically equivalent" - is an option ;-) > > I don't think in the general case the two graphs _are_ "equivalent". And > I think we have to be careful not to project a DC-specific problem onto > the wider world. Pete Thanks for the explanation. I've added a short note to the document about this. Andy -- Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell +44 1225 383933 Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/ ECDL 2004, Bath, UK - 12-17 Sept 2004 - http://www.ecdl2004.org/