> 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
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
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.