Hi Harry,
Thanks very much for the clarifications! Some further comments inline.
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 19:04, Wagner,Harry wrote:
> Hi Mikael,
>
> > I see in http://dublincore.org/2001/08/14/dcq# that there is no
> > dcterms:TypeScheme Class. This class is in the schema found in
> > http://dublincore.org/documents/2002/04/14/dcq-rdf-xml/#DCQS
> >
> > Which one is the more recent, really? Does TypeScheme exist or not?
>
> http://dublincore.org/documents/2002/04/14/dcq-rdf-xml/#DCQS is still a
> proposed recommendation. The RDF schema found at
> http://dublincore.org/2001/08/14/dcq# is the last representation of DC terms
> in RDFS. Note that it is not an approved document. TypeScheme is not a DC
> term or qualifier, but merely a convenience class for grouping other
> classes. I'm not sure why it is not in the 08/14 version of the RDFS.
TypeScheme adds useful semantics to the schemas I'm working on (IEEE
LOM), so I'm grateful for it. But your answer leaves me somewhat
confused!
Since neither of 2001/08/14 or 2002/04/14 is approved, shouldn't the
latest of them be "current" in the sense of being at
http://purl.org/dc/terms/? Or is 2001/08/14 approved in some sense that
2002/04/14 is not?
In short, I want to use the latest approximation of a DCQ schema, and
I'm not sure which one is safer, older or newer.
>
> > 3. Where can I be sure to find the latest and greatest schemas?
>
> All approved schemas are at: http://dublincore.org/schemas/. This is a
> pretty short list at present, but is expected to grow. Note that there are
> no RDF schemas that have been approved. Until there are I suggest using the
> schemas that the namespaces resolve to.
Yes, but why does it not resolve to the schema in the 2002/04/14
document? There must be some part of DC procedures that I'm unaware of,
right?
/Mikael
|