 |
 |
May I suggest that this discussion could better take place on DC-ARCHITECTURE? Makx Dekkers. > -----Original Message----- > From: General DCMI discussion list > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pete Johnston > Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 6:37 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: xsi:type to specify encoding > > Hi Karen, > > > Pete, thanks as always. Could you show how one would use the > > VES defined in DCMI terms? That's the main question here. I > > want to use dc/terms/subject and LCC or DDC as the vocabulary > > of the subject. > > For LCC as a vocabulary encoding scheme, I think the corresponding > RDF/XML example would be: > > <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" > xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" > xmlns:dcam="http://purl.org/dc/dcam/"> > <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/book/123"> > <dcterms:subject> > <rdf:Description> > <dcam:memberOf rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/terms/LCC"/> > <rdf:value>HV3709</rdf:value> > </rdf:Description> > </dcterms:subject> > </rdf:Description> > </rdf:RDF> > > RDF/XML allows some syntactic variations so I can think of another > slightly different way of "saying the same thing", but I > think the above > should do what you want. > > And if there was a URI for your LCC term, say > http://example.org/LCC/HV3709 , then that could be included > > <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" > xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" > xmlns:dcam="http://purl.org/dc/dcam/"> > <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/book/123"> > <dcterms:subject> > <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/LCC/HV3709"> > <dcam:memberOf rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/terms/LCC"/> > <rdf:value>HV3709</rdf:value> > </rdf:Description> > </dcterms:subject> > </rdf:Description> > </rdf:RDF> > > > The documentation says: > > > > "This term is intended to be used with non-literal values as > > defined in the DCMI Abstract Model > > (http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/). As of > > December 2007, the DCMI Usage Board is seeking a way to > > express this intention with a formal range declaration." > > > > Does this mean that we don't currently have a way to do what I want? > > No... that note is a reference to a separate issue, the range of > dcterms:subject, which is currently unspecified and so is the class > rdfs:Resource, i.e. the class of anything at all, including literals; > and there was some discussion of changing it to say it was a > class which > excluded literals. > > Pete