> >
> > 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
> date fields.
Well...There are the new RDF drafts:
It should read for instance
<dcterms:issued rdf:datatype="&xsd;date">1999-07-02</dcterms:issued>
>
> > 2) | <dc:type
> > rdf:resource="http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/principles
> > /#element"/>
> >
> > -- 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
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/09/19-usage/v2/dces.rdf),
> > 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?
This is one of the TYPICAL uses of rdf:type.
>
> 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.
Sure you can say, dc:type fits, for it has rdf:type as a subproperty.
It is just less specific: The use of rdf:type implies the value is a class,
whereas dc:type does not.
rs
>
> Regards,
> Harry
>
> > Tom
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
>
|