> From [log in to unmask] Thu Feb 14 14:39 MET 2002
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 08:39:52 -0500
> From: "Wagner,Harry" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: DCQ schema
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> 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.
That's my impression to: The schema was hacked while the corresponding rec
was still under development. The development moved into a different direction
as the authors of the RDF schema had assumed.
rs
> The only real difference is the ns
> purl now points to it.
>
> Regards,
> harry
>
|