On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 17:23 +0000, Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
>
> But won't most people do e.g.
>
> <http://somewhere/somedoc> dc:subject <http://somewhere/someconcept> .
>
> ... ? I.e. in this (most common?) use case the user is referring
> directly to a conceptual resource via the URI of that resource, and so
> never has to refer a vocabulary encoding scheme. Can you outline the
> usage scenarios involving dc:subject that require a reference to a
> vocabulary encoding scheme?
It's true that the URI is a unique reference to the concept, even
without reference to a VES. However, there are a number of scenarios
where an explicit VES is helpful:
* When converting between different encodings (XML and RDF, typically).
* When presenting/editing metadata records and the presentation/editing
software is vocabulary-aware, a VES will help present/select between
concepts. See for example our work on SHAME [1].
* Dumb-down [2] requires presence of at least rdfs:label in order to
work. If you copy the rdfs:label of your conceptual resource into the
instance metadata, it's reasonable to copy at least rdf:type too.
It's true that all scenarios assume that for some reason, the full RDF
for the concept is not available. Providing duplicate data fragments is
a kind of service to DC consumers, not an absolute requirement.
[1] http://kmr.nada.kth.se/shame/
[2] http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/#sect-5
> Aaaah you used the 'T' word ('term')!!! I would do something like:
Oh, sorry ;-)
I guess it's a *very* good idea to avoid usage of that term (oups, I
mean *word*!). Especially in a spec such as SKOS. But people must be
allowed to use it in their own thesauri, right? I mean, if the
organization behind AAT uses the word "term" in their document, it's
only reasonable to use it in the RDF as well...?
But not in SKOS, I agree.
/Mikael
