> However, digging too deeply into this uncovers some horrible holes in the
> definitions of the 15 elements. For example, the value of dc:identifier
> is not 'the resource' (a physical or conceptual entity) but 'a reference
> to the resource' (a conceptual entity). (I.e. in RDF, the value of
> dc:identifier should never be a resource). The same is true of
> dc:relation ('A reference to a related resource') and dc:source. This
> seems to run counter to other definitions in DCMES - e.g. dc:creator,
> which is defined to be 'An entity...' (rather than 'A reference to an
> entitiy...'). This is probably a little unfortunate.
i just want to notice, that literals in RDF are viewed
as resources also - at least nowadays.
A difference to URI denoted resources/ explicit bnodes
is, that you can't put literals in subject position
of an RDF assertion. You can't use (untyped) literals to denote
What is denoted by a URI in our context are the dc-properties -
these are resources we can interprete suitably - with
literals we're fixed in RDF.