On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Pete Johnston wrote:
> I think if we need to make distinctions between elements which are in
> one of the DCMI namespaces on the basis of their "status" (e.g.
> "cross-domain" v "domain-specific"... Not sure if there are other
> options?!), in addition to whether they are elements or refinements,
> then we need this information explicitly recorded in the RDF schema
> descriptions of the terms in those namespaces.
I agree this issue needs discussion.
But before we start discussing syntax I think it would be useful to
clarify what 'domain-specific' actually means. I raised this [1] on the
DC-General list in response to the proposal for the audience-level
qualifier.
Subsequent responses, in particular that from Stuart Sutton [2], tend to
make me believe that 'domain specific' is more to do with the
*recommendation* and *approval* process, rather than being anything
persistent about the semantics or usage of the term.
I quote from Stuart's mail
<quote>
So, instead of bearing an immense burden of cross-domain proof, we let
domain-specific DCMI recommendations "percolate" up from domain-specific
status to where many domains find them useful _in practice_ (i.e.,
cross-domain).
</quote>
This (and other mails on that thread) makes me think that this 'status'
information needs to be recorded in the DCMI Vocabulary Management System,
as a historical record of how something was approved, rather than in any
widely circulated RDF schema.
Of course this does not mean that such information could not be expressed
within the structure of an RDF schema. Just that I am not sure who would
want that information. I just don't see it as being particularly helpful
to for example, users of the DCMI registry.
What might well be helpful would be information informing the user of
terms that make up the DC Education Application profile, but that could
not be derived from a status 'domain specific'.
Rachel
[1]
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0202&L=dc-general&O=A&P=1352
[2]
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0202&L=dc-general&P=1503
>
> The "top-level" element/element refinement distinction can be derived
> from the statements made about a term using rdfs:subPropertyOf, but at
> the moment (or at least the last time I looked!) there is no record of
> "status" in a machine-readable form.
>
> I'm not sure whether there are any other properties of terms which
> should be recorded, but looking at e.g. the record of Usage Board
> decisions regarding the acceptance of audience/mediator/conformsTo at
>
> http://dublincore.org/usage/decisions/2001/education-01.shtml
>
> I think the only omission from the data in the RDF schemas is "status"?
>
> Pete
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Heery
UKOLN
University of Bath tel: +44 (0)1225 826724
Bath, BA2 7AY, UK fax: +44 (0)1225 826838
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/
|