> From [log in to unmask] Fri Mar 14 22:41 MET 2003
> X-RAL-MFrom: <[log in to unmask]>
> X-RAL-Connect: <pat.bath.ac.uk [18.104.22.168]>
> RDF-XML: <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
> xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"> <rdf:Description
> about=""> <dc:publisher> UKOLN - University of Bath </dc:publisher>
> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>
> DC.Publisher: UKOLN - University of Bath
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 21:31:53 +0000
> From: Andy Powell <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Proposed DCMI RDF Schema Changes - status?
> To: [log in to unmask]
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Roland Schwaenzl wrote:
> > If some working group is in consense to propose "hasStatus" as a refinement to
> > "dc:relation" it may propose this - with the documentation needed for that
> > - to dc:usage
> Errr... 'hasStatus' is no more a refinement of relation than 'hasDate' or
> 'hasFormat' (or dc:date and dc:format as we prefer to call them!). I.e.
> if hasStatus is a refinement of relation then so is every other DC
Andy please clarify:
Are you saying: ""If "hasStatus" is a refinement of dc:relation, then all dc-elements
or do you say: """hasStatus" is not a refinement of dc:relation, for if it were other
inferences would follow you consider as wrong.""
I took NO position on the issue itself in the wording you cited,
just pointed to process.
> Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell +44 1225 383933
> Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/