But dcterms:valid is for the temporal validity of the resource, not the
content ("Date (often a range) of validity of a resource."), even though its
possible that in some cases the same date could be valid for dcterms:valid
and dcterms:temporal. But that doesn't mean the semantics overlap, or that
the properties are related. I'm not sure why you say that the temporal scope
of the content includes the temporal validity of the resource (the current
definition of dcterms:temporal says: "Temporal characteristics of the
intellectual content of the resource.")? The content is *not* the resource.
Isn't the problem illuminated here that DCMES is for describing 'resources'
but some of the properties we use are for describing the 'content' of the
resource, as if it was something separate from the resource itself? Content
has its own characteristics but does not exist independently of the
resource?
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: A mailing list for the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative's Usage
Board [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Andy Powell
Sent: 05 September 2005 16:37
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Something to look at re: Coverage
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> why can't we say 'the content of the resource'?
As in "the temporal or spatial scope of the content of the resource"? I
don't think that helps... the temporal scope of the content includes the
temporal validity of the content (assuming that we agree that validity is
one aspect of 'scope'), which is exactly what dcterms:valid is!
Andy.
> A
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A mailing list for the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative's Usage
> Board [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Andy Powell
> Sent: 05 September 2005 16:17
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Something to look at re: Coverage
>
>
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Andy Powell wrote:
>
>>> Also, if coverage includes jurisdiction ("spatial applicability", if you
>>> like), then presumably it includes "temporal applicability"
>>
>> No, I don't think so.
>
> Actually, I think this brings us right back to the start of this
> discussion. I originally proposed a re-definition of coverage as
>
> The spatial or temporal topic of the resource or the jurisdiction under
> which the resource is relevant.
>
> which would clearly flag coverage as being different from, say,
> dcterms:valid because spatial and temporal are explicitly to do with
> 'aboutness'.
>
> Diane wanted to water down the 'aboutness' bit of this, with something
> like
>
> The spatial or temporal scope of the resource or the jurisdiction under
> which the resource is relevant.
>
> which would, to my mind, open up the possibility of overlaps with
> dcterms:valid.
>
> dc:coverage -> temporal scope -> temporal validity -> dcterms:valid
>
> So, I agree with Pete that there are possible overlaps with dc:date *but*
> only if we are forced to go with Diane's use of 'scope' rather than my use
> of 'topic'! :-)
>
> Andy
> --
> Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell
> tel: +44 1225 383933 msn: [log in to unmask]
> Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
>
Andy
--
Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell
tel: +44 1225 383933 msn: [log in to unmask]
Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
