On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 13:43, Roland Schwaenzl wrote:
> Dear Michael,
> "entity" is treated by RDF as a synomym of "resource".
Well, that depends on the semantics we give it, no? But it is broad, I
agree. But I would say it is disjoint from, say <dcclass:Date> or
<rdf:Property>, so it's not equal to <rdfs:Resource>, now is it?
> To create a class "entity" is a null of additional info.
> It's much more interesting and IMPORTANT to say:
> A resource is of type Person or Organization or ...
Yes, and they would be subClasses of Entity, then. They could even be
regarded from an abstract model point of view as vocabulary encoding
> The problem is, that such classes do not exist in DC, but
> in many other RDF based vocabularies.
In my opinion it would therefore be a good thing if DC could interface
with these vocabularies. A subClass relation (i.e., the existence of a
class to subclass from) is a good thing.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose