Ann said:
> 2. The element Description is showing an element refinement
> 'Comment' (at least I assume that is what superPropertyOf
> means) as well as TableOfContents and Abstract. I don't think
> a qualifier 'Comment' has ever been agreed. I suspect there
> may be some confusion here between an RDF 'description' and
> DC.Description.
I think this is because the recent RDF Schema describes the property
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment (="rdfs:comment")
to be a sub-property of
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/description (="dc:description")
I can see the logic of this but I agree with Ann that it's a bit
confusing when the HTML page presents only the human-readable label
("comment") without an indication of its "source context".
> 3. The link from the above 'Comment' doesn't seem to go to a
> very sensible place in the RDF schema. Also the links to
> 'Definition', 'Defines' and 'RDF Type' don't seem to go to
> anywhere obvious.
I see what you mean. The targets of these hyperlinks are the URIs of the
rdf:/rdfs: properties, and traversing those URIs/URLs returns RDF
Schemas for those namespaces. For the DCMI properties, on the other
hand, (in the right hand column, at least) the hyperlinks are queries to
the registry which returns an HTML representation. I guess the
difference in behaviour is down to the fact that the schemas for the
rdf:/rdfs: namespaces are not "indexed" by the registry. I guess an
alternative behaviour would be to build hyperlinks only where a resource
_has_ been indexed by the registry?
> 5. Relation is showing qualifiers (aka subProperties)
> ConformsTo, isDefinedBy and seeAlso which are not agreed
> qualifiers as far as I'm aware.
I think "conformsTo" _is_ a DCMI-approved qualifier, associated with the
"dcterms:" namespace. See
http://dublincore.org/usage/terms/dc/current-elements/
Approved at the same time as "audience" and "mediator", I think? But
prior to Tom B's recent updating the documentation, easily missed, I
agree! ;-)
"isDefinedBy" and "seeAlso" are from the rdfs: namespace and I guess
appear here for much the same reason as "comment" does.... Again I
agree with the logic of the semantic relationship, but the lack of
"qualification" (in a general sense not a DCMI sense!) of these labels
makes it a bit confusing.
Not sure I have a good suggestion - should the registry "filter out"
resources from the non-DCMI namespaces for _display_ purposes?
Pete
|