 |
 |
Dear all, I have posted the following comment to the RDFa Working Group mailing list to point out an inconsistency in the use of the "dc:" prefix and to request feedback on the idea of publishing DCMI Metadata Terms in RDFa. Tom On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 07:55:14AM -0400, Thomas Baker wrote: > Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 07:55:14 -0400 > From: Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Comment on RDFa Core 1.1: vocabulary prefix "dc:" > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Dear all, > > The current draft of RDFa Core 1.1 [1] has some inconsistencies > with regard to the vocabulary prefix "dc:": > > -- Section 2, Syntax Overview, defines "dc:" as http://purl.org/dc/terms/. > This is the prefix that DCMI generally promotes, because properties in > this namespace have formal ranges. > > -- The examples in Section 2.2 define the prefix as > http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/, the namespace in which > properties have no formal range. Are there perhaps good > reasons to prefer the more lightly specified /1.1/ namespace > for use with RDFa? If so, should DCMI consider making the > case more explicit and actively promote the use of /1.1/ > with RDFa? > > -- The example RDFa profile document described in RDFa > Core 1.1, http://www.example.org/vocab-rdf-dc.html, says > that the prefix "dc:" can be used for the URI > http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/ -- the > URL of the XHTML document describing DCMI metadata > terms which is, however, _not_ promoted for use in > identifying properties and classes. Note that the > XHTML document currently has name= anchors such as > http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-creator, > intended to be used as document anchors, not as identifiers. > > It has been suggested that DCMI publish its vocabulary using > RDFa instead of (or in addition to) publishing it as a separate > RDF schema, and in light of the inconsistencies in [1], I > wonder if doing so could risk further compounding the confusion > about which URI to use -- especially if the vocabulary were > to continue to be published at [2]. Any advice this group > could offer DCMI on this point would be much appreciated. > > Many thanks, > Tom > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rdfa-core-20100422/ > [2] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/ > > -- > Tom Baker, DCMI <[log in to unmask]> -- Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>