 |
 |
On ons, 2007-02-07 at 17:31 +1300, Douglas Campbell wrote: > 5. "Each resource may be a member of one or more vocabulary encoding > schemes" - I feel a little bit uneasy about this statement. While it > is certainly true (eg. if one vocabulary includes terms from another), > we would need to be very careful in stating a particular resource/term > is included in multiple vocabularies as each occurance may appear to > be the same but in fact be subtley different. For example the concept > "New Zealand" may occur in both ISO3166 and Getty's Thesaurus of > Geographic Names, but upon closer inspection we may discover their > definitions of what "New Zealand" includes differs (such as including > different outlying islands) [NB: I don't know whether that is true] > and so in fact it doesn't occur in two vocabularies as there are > actually two different concepts/terms. I realise how people interpret > this is outside the scope of the model, but is likely to be a common > trap (it reminds me of the issue of thinking XML namespaces can be > re-used as RDF properties) So, your point is that maybe we should limit the VES membership to only one VES per value, right? I agree there might be dangers in the assigning of VES to a value that is only given as a string, but that danger is not made lesser by restricting the number of memberships to one. Which of ISO3166 and Getty is right for your statement? So I'm not sure we can address that issue in the DCAM... Ideally, values are referenced by URI, making them unambiguous (and making it unnecessary to specify VESs in each metadata record...) /Mikael -- <[log in to unmask]> Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose