Just a short note: IEEE LOM/RDF will have both lom-life:version and
lom-life:status properties, with the intended semantics.
On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 17:36, Pete Johnston wrote:
> > I'm confused by this. hasVersion and hasFormat are
> > refinements of dc:relation. How do they differ from hasStatus?
> I guess it comes down to naming conventions for existing DC
> Consider the difference between dcterms:hasFormat and dc:format (a
> parallel argument could be made for version, but we don't have a
> dc:version property)
> In the case of dcterms:hasFormat, the object of a statement using that
> property is a second resource of some unspecified type and that second
> resource "is a format of" the subject resource, in the sense that it is
> a representation of the same content in a different representational
> form; the object is _not_ a "resource of type Format" (assuming that
> class existed).
> In contrast, the object of a statement using the dc:format property
> could be a "resource of type Format", though I guess usually it's a
> I agree that in a parallel universe DCMI _could_ have adopted a
> different naming convention for their properties and used "hasFormat"
> instead of "format" for the latter case (along with hasCreator,
> hasPublisher, hasSubject, hasType etc etc etc), and used something like
> "hasRelatedResourceWhichIsFormatOfThisResource" for the former case. But
> they haven't ;-)
> With the proposed "status" property, the object _would_ be a "resource
> of type Status" (or possibly/probably a literal) so it seems more
> consistent with existing DC convention to adopt someprefix:status,
> rather than someprefix:hasStatus. But when it comes down to it, it is a
> matter of convention.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose