> With DC Arch membership hat now. The DCMI is considering
> what to do about this. At the DC Architecture group meeting
> at DC2002 in Florence, the people in the room had consensus
> that RDF datatypes were likely appropriate for encoding
> schemes - or at least some of them. I think those present in
> Florence who also email here, who expressed an opinion or
> concurred included: Tom Baker, Dan Brickley, Rachel Heery,
> Pete Johnston(?), Eric Miller, Andy Powell, Harry Wagner as
> well as myself.
I wasn't in Florence, but yes, I raised the question here
after seeing the examples in the drafts put out by the RDF Core WG.
And as Dave says, it looked to me as if at least some of the DC encoding
schemes were candidates for modelling as rdfs:Datatype, and (like
Mikael) I find the simplicity/consistency of that approach appealing.
But I was less sure about some of the "vocabulary" encoding schemes
where it's less clear that an instance of an "encoding scheme term"
should be represented as a (typed) literal - which is what I understood
Roland was arguing in that thread here