On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 12:28, Roland Schwaenzl wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [resource URI] --dc:identifier--> [value URI] --rdfs:label--> "[resource URI]"
> > > > >
> > > > > ...where the URIs at both ends are identical.
> > >
> > >
> > > A value of a dc:identifier is by definition "an unambiguous reference to the
> > > resource in the given context."
> > >
> > > A [value URI] IS a resource URI. The linguistic distinction between resource URI's and value
> > > URI's is an illusion.
> >
> > Correct, and I think this could be made explicit in the AM.
> >
> > His example is still correct, I think.
>
> Isn't rdfs:label supposed to provide "a human-readable version of a resource's name" and has range rdfs:Literal?
It *is* a Literal. Look again.
But probably rdf:value would be a better choice in this case, even
though the exact property to use is irrelevant in this context. That's
something for the DC RDF binding to define, namely:
How is a "value string" (in AM terminology) represented? Using
rdfs:label or rdf:value, or something else?
/Mikael
--
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
The more things change, the more they stay the same
|