On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 12:58:18PM +0200, Roland Schwaenzl wrote:
> > Providing a statement model as an overall frame could perhaps
> > help avoid such confusion. Of course, that statement model
> > would now maps much more completely onto the RDF model than
> > the literal-value-based model of the D-Lib paper.
> Do you want to have the abstract (!) model
> for DC dependent (!) on RDF(S)?
No. But as Figure 6 of the 2003-08-11 draft shows, it maps onto
several RDF(S) features quite nicely.
> Some clarification i would like:
> Do you think DCQ-RDF/XML is compliant with the model?
> Do you think DCS-RDF/XML is compliant?
Is that the question, or is the question really to what
extent do the encoding specifications support the model?
I should think that "compliance" (of _instance_ metadata)
would be judged against the model of compliance defined for
the particular encoding options.
> The abstract model stresses the role
> of distributed knowledge basis -
> Do you see a hidden problem at that point?
Not sure what you are getting at...?
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
Personal email: [log in to unmask]