Hi Pete,
Thanks for the response. Please see my comments below.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Johnston [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 8:45 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Registry Prototypes
>
>
> Harry said:
>
> > The registry breakout session at the DC-9 workshop will focus on
> identifying
> > and prioritizing functional requirements for the phase 1
> DCMI metadata
> > registry. To facilitate this effort two prototypes have
> been developed.
> > They are available at
> http://wip.dublincore.org:8080/registry/Registry. I
> > encourage anyone interested in participating (especially
> those planning on
> > attending this breakout session) to evaluate and comment on these
> > prototypes.
>
> Two points:
>
> (1) I'm afraid I haven't been able to keep up with recent
> developments in
> detail, so my apologies if I missed something.... but in a couple of
> messages two weeks ago,
>
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0109&L=dc-regis
> try&F=&S=&P=20
> 92
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0109&L=dc-regis
> try&F=&S=&P=23
> 40
>
> I queried what seemed (to me!) to be contradictions between
> the RDF schema
> in appendix 5.1 of the DCQ in RDF document, now at
>
> http://dublincore.org/documents/2001/08/29/dcq-rdf-xml/
>
> and the schema at
>
> http://dublincore.org/2001/08/14/dcq#
>
> which (I think?) is what is being indexed by the registry?
Both of the registry prototypes are using the schemas listed in the
namespace doc, which are:
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
http://purl.org/dc/terms/
http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/
The only change (my attempt to add element, qualifier, etc. classes was
squashed) to these schemas in the last 6 months or so was the adition of the
new dced elements (i.e., audience).
It seems to me we have spent a great deal of time on the document describing
the schemas and not enough on the schemas themselves.
>
> Specifically, I was concerned that in the former, we have (if
> I dare hazard
> venturing into N3 notation!)
>
> @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
> @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
> @prefix dcq: http://purl.org/dc/terms/ .
>
> dcq:LCSH rdf:type dcq:SubjectScheme .
>
> which I understand can be abbreviated to
>
> dcq:LCSH a dcq:SubjectScheme .
>
> However, in the latter we have
>
> dcq:LCSH rdfs:subClassOf dcq:SubjectScheme .
>
> I don't think these are saying the same thing (and I argued
> that the former
> made more sense to me but I was hoping for clarification...)
>
> On a more pragmatic note, I don't think the displays in the registry
> prototypes are saying the same thing as the appendix of the DCQ in RDF
> document, and the eagle-eyed in Tokyo may notice this!
>
>
> (2) The current interfaces apply more "human-readable" labels
> instead of
> displaying the property names from the RDFS namespace
> ("subClassOf" etc).
>
> This is probably A Very Good Thing! However, I notice that
> "Refines" is used
> as a label for _both_ rdfs:subPropertyOf and rdfs:subClassOf.
This is correct. Both subpropertyof and subclassof have the "refines"
label. I'm not crazy about this either, and am 100% open to suggestions for
better labels. I think the "further refined by" label could use some work
as well.
>
> e.g.
>
> Firstly, in the display of the definition of
> http://purl.org/dc/terms/alternative the display states that
> it "refines"
> http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title. In RDFS terms, this is a
> rdfs:subPropertyOf relationship. And in the terms of the DCQ
> document at
>
> http://dublincore.org/documents/2000/07/11/dcmes-qualifiers/
>
> it's a case of "element refinement", which I am assuming is what the
> "Refines" label is seeking to communicate.
>
> However, elsewhere, e.g. in the display of the definition of
> http://purl.org/dc/terms/LCSH and
> http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Collection the
> display uses "refines" to label what is presently encoded as a
> rdfs:subClassOf relationship... (though I'm querying above whether
> subClassOf is correct for the LCSH case!)
>
> Certainly in RDFS terms, I think an rdfs:subClassOf relationship is
> different from an rdfs:subPropertyOf relationship..... And
> I'm not entirely
> sure these are cases of (what DCQ calls) "element
> refinement".... in which
> case, I'm wondering whether "refines" is an appropriate label.
>
> I do like the idea of that a Dublin Core registry should employ a user
> interface which uses the terminology of the DC/DCQ documents,
> rather than
> that of RDF Schema, but I think this may be an example of
> using one label
> for two _different_ properties/relationships, and I think that may be
> slightly confusing... but again, I'm really seeking
> clarification here!
>
> Thanks
Thanks again! Harry
>
> Pete
> -------
> Pete Johnston
> Interoperability Research Officer
> UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
> tel: +44 (0)1225 323619 fax: +44 (0)1225 826838
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/p.johnston/
>
|