Andy,
> OK, thanks. I missed the significance of your message.
> Given that there
> were zero responses to this message (as far as I can tell) I
> suggest that
> others may have done also. In fact, this must be the case,
> because the RDF
> schemas you have installed are clearly broken and very
> misleading about
> the current status of DCMI terms.
Actually the version at the end of the ns purl is almost identical to what
was already published at http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13/dcq and dctype.
There were no changes (as near as I can tell) to any of the items being
discussed - note, release and resource. The only real difference is the ns
purl now points to it.
Regards,
harry
|