> 2. I notice that in
> the schema says
> http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title "Dublin
> Core Qualifiers" .
> Is that an appropriate title given that that vocabulary includes
> dcterms:audience, which is not a "qualifier"?
Fair enough. We will remove the 'qualifiers' title.
> 3. In
> the schema says
> http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title
> "The Dublin Core Element Set v1.1 namespace providing access to it's
> content by means of an RDF Schema" .
This was taken straight from the current schemas.
> 4. In both
> the value of the dcterms:modified property for the vocabulary (or the
> schema representing the vocabulary) is earlier than the value of the
> dcterms:modified property for some of the terms described.
This date will be set, by hand, to whatever date the schemas are actually
> 5. If (as I think a number of people suggested), we use
> rdf:type instead
> of dc:type to describe the relation between the terms and the
> identified by the URIs
> then should we be providing RDF descriptions of these resources as
> rdfs:Class-es (since the rdfs:range of rdf:type is rdfs:Class)?
> I'm not sure it's strictly necessary but it might be "good practice"?
> (And it probably applies even if we stick with dc:type)
Yes, a suggestion was made to use rdf:type, rather than dc:type. However, I
haven't heard a convincing argument for doing so, and dc:type seems more
appropriate to me. I don't think it is necessary to provide rdf
descriptions for the actual types - at least not with this change.
Keep in mind that the purpose of this change is to allow people to begin
using the new terms, and to enable the registry work to continue. We should
leave it at that for now. Based on past history, a change of ANY
significance to the schemas would take a significant amount of time to reach