> These updated schemas are meant to replace:
> -- currently resolved to by http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
> -- currently resolved to by http://purl.org/dc/terms/
> -- currently resolved to by http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/
No. The date-stamped schemas referenced above will not be replaced or
removed. They will continue to be available. The new schemas will be
installed in a new location and the namespace URIs changed to resolve to
> There has been discussion in breakout sessions in Florence
> and in the Usage Board about alternatives to this model,
> but until the new model is in place we need to update the
> data expressed within the old model, so these new schemas
> are most welcome.
> Just two comments:
> 1) | <dcterms:issued xml:lang="en-US">1999-07-02</dcterms:issued>
> | <dcterms:modified xml:lang="en-US">2002-10-04</dcterms:modified>
> xml:lang seems unnecessary for dcterms:issued and
> dcterms:modified, though perhaps it does no harm?
In the past we have used xml:lang inconsistantly. We use it for some
literals (i.e. label, comment, etc.) but not for others. In the new
schemas, all literals will include the xml:lang attribute, including the
> 2) | <dc:type
> -- Harry's schemas declare "Type of Term" using dc:type.
> http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/type is defined as
> "The nature or genre of the content of the resource"
> with the comment: "Type includes terms describing general
> categories, functions, genres, or aggregation levels for
> content. Recommended best practice is to select a value
> from a controlled vocabulary (for example, the DCMI
> Type Vocabulary). To describe the physical or digital
> manifestation of the resource, use the Format element."
> -- Eric, in prototype schemas he generated after the
> discussions in DC2002 (see
> uses rdf:type for this instead of dc:type.
> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type is
> defined simple as: "Identifies the class of a resource."
> Perhaps we should eventually create a dcu:type -- a Usage
> Board element specifically defined as the "DCMI Type of
> Term". For now, rdf:type seems like perhaps the better fit?
I think this is a mistake. dc:Type is a perfect fit. I don't see a reason
to create another term, in a new schema, to describe something that can
already be described using the DCES.
> Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
> Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven mobile +49-160-9664-2129
> Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft work +49-30-8109-9027
> 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-144-2352