[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, [log in to unmask]]
----- Original Message -----
From: "ext Pete Johnston" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 06 December, 2002 19:07
Subject: Re: RDF typed literals and DC encoding schemes
> Patrick said:
>
> > It seems to me that there are two primary uses of rdf:value
> > in DC, one for datatyped values and another for controlled
> > code sets. Typed literals in the new RDF specs handles the
> > first case, and a URI based approach such as above would more
> > optimally handle the second (since the values in question are
> > resources about which additional statements must be made,
> > such as label).
> >
> > One metric I've employed for some time is that, if a value
> > needs a label, or is a member of a controlled set, use a URI
> > to denote the value.
> >
> > Given the fact that rdf:value has no semantics defined in the
> > MT, and is, while not deprecated, also has no normative
> > interpretation defined, opting for typed literals for
> > datatype values and URIs for controlled termset values seems
> > a better way to go.
>
> Sounds reasonable!
>
> I guess one of the issues is "political" more than technical, in that
> most of the controlled termsets specified as DC encoding schemes are
> owned/managed by agencies other than DCMI - and perhaps this is a slight
> difference from the LOM case?
>
> DCMI has specified URIs for naming the termsets as a whole e.g.
> http://purl.org/dc/terms/LCSH/ , but has stopped short of specifying
> URIs for individual values within those termsets on the grounds (at
> least partly, I imagine?) that the convention for identifying those
> values is really the responsibility of the agencies owning the termsets?
>
> Pete
Well, I can certainly appreciate the political implications that may
be percieved when referencing/using other folks terms -- minting
URIs which are grounded in ones own namespace to denote those terms
does not preclude the owners of those vocabularies to define their
own URIs. I.e. DC is not usurping ownership nor modifying the
meaning of those terms by minting URIs to denote them.
In fact, I would consider the act of defining a URI to denote any
resource a socially acceptable part of the Web. DC is free to create
whatever URIs it likes in its own namespaces for whatever resources
are relevant to DC users.
If I define a URI http://nokia.com/patricksterms/Paris to denote the
city of Paris, I would hardly expect the citizens of Paris to get their
undies all in a wad over it. That's *my* name for Paris and I'm free to
mint whatever names I like, and use those names to say whatever I like.
If DC says that http://purl.org/dc/terms/MESH/D08.586.682.075.400
denotes "Formate Dehydrogenases" according to the Medical Subject
Headings vocabulary, then that is what it denotes, and the owners
of the MESH vocabulary should neither be concerned nor offended.
DC is free to mint whatever names it likes, and so long as the
assertions that DC makes about those terms, such as their labels,
semantics, relations to other terms, etc. do not conflict with
that of the owners of the MESH vocabulary, all should be well.
I encourage DC to take the next step and define those URIs and use
them with a clear conscience.
Cheers,
Patrick
|