Hi Tom My 0.02 on this As a general remark, the more SKOS and DC are clearly interlinked, the better :) #1 : Complete agreement, being aware of consequences. If the domain of skos:inScheme is open, its range is skos:ConceptScheme, so using this property entails that any dcam:VocabularyEncodingScheme used as the object of skos:inScheme is a skos:ConceptScheme. The following logical step is to declare dcam:VocabularyEncodingScheme as a subclass of skos:ConceptScheme. And the next one is asking what is specific to this subclass. If there is no specificity, dcam:VocabularyEncodingScheme could as well (should?) be replaced in the abstract model by skos:ConceptScheme. Do you want to go this far in entailments? #2 : In exemple in [1] seems to me that the two instances of rdf:value should not use skos:prefLabel, the second one (EA32) is exactly a skos:notation (of which domain is as open as the ones of skos:inScheme and skos:prefLabel. See http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#notations So the example revisited would look like the following ... <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" xmlns:skos="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"> <skos:ConceptScheme rdf:about="http://www.example.org/ns#ExampleSubjects "> <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Example Subjects</rdfs:label> </skos:ConceptScheme> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/123"> <dcterms:subject> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.org/subject32"> <skos:inScheme rdf:resource=" http://www.example.org/ns#ExampleSubjects"/> <skos:prefLabel xml:lang="en">Biology</skos:prefLabel> <skos:notation rdf:datatype=" http://www.example.org/ns#SubjectEncoding">EA32</skos:notation> </rdf:Description> </dcterms:subject> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> Granted, in this example, <http://www.example.org/subject32> is not declared as a skos:Concept, but begins to look furiously like one :) Nothing prevents to extend its description using other skos properties with open domain, such as skos:altLabel, skos:definition ... Bernard 2009/10/15 Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]> > Dear all, > > David Wood suggests two changes in how DCAM constructs are > represented in RDF [1]: > > 1. Instead of using dcam:memberOf to relate a value to a > DCAM Vocabulary Encoding Scheme [1, section 4.5], David > suggests using skos:inScheme [2]. > > 2. Instead of using rdf:value to relate a value to a > DCAM Value String [1, section 4.6], David suggests using > skos:prefLabel [3]. > > Some first reactions: > > -- The domain of skos:inScheme was left unspecified in > order to provide the flexibility to extend a concept scheme > with classes of resource other than skos:Concept (i.e., the use > of skos:inScheme does not imply that the subject is a concept). > Also, skos:inScheme is better-known than dcam:memberOf. > So #1 seems like a sound idea. > > -- The domain of skos:prefLabel was also left unspecified [3], > so its use does not imply that the subject of a statement is > a SKOS concept. On the other hand, I believe the > correct use of rdf:value has long been unclear. > So #2 seems like a good idea too, though as part of such a > change we would need to understand better where the problem > with rdf:value lies. > > Tom (at DC-2009, Seoul) > > [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-rdf/#sect-4 > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L2805 > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L1541 > > -- > Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]> > -- Bernard Vatant Senior Consultant Vocabulary & Data Engineering Tel: +33 (0) 971 488 459 Mail: [log in to unmask] ---------------------------------------------------- Mondeca 3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France Web: http://www.mondeca.com Blog: http://mondeca.wordpress.com ----------------------------------------------------