JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives


DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives

DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives


DC-ARCHITECTURE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DC-ARCHITECTURE Home

DC-ARCHITECTURE Home

DC-ARCHITECTURE  January 2004

DC-ARCHITECTURE January 2004

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: New version of the DCMI Abstract Model working draft

From:

Mikael Nilsson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DCMI Architecture Group <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:08:13 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (61 lines)

On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 13:46, Pete Johnston wrote:
> So just to clarify, if I am using dc:identifier to provide the URI of
> the resource being described, in the terms of our model, is that URI
> 
> (a) a "value URI" (= a "resource URI"), and therefore the value-resource
> is the same resource as that being described (and dc:identifier is a
> "self-referential" property); or
> (b) a "value string", and the value-resource is an identifier (a
> resource of type some:Identifier, if you like, and not the same resource
> as that being described)
> 
> I think you're saying it's (b), but I just want to be sure.

No. It cannot be decided from your description. It depends on *how* you
"use dc:identifier to provide the URI". You can do that as a value
string *or* as a value URI. In RDF it will be two different statements:

<dc:identifier rdf:resource="http://..."/>

or

<dc:identifier>http:///...</dc:identifier>

So my point is that an encoding *must* (?) disambiguate between the two
cases. It can never be inferred. Well, in practice it probably can, as
there are relatively few cases where you want to use (a) (in the
dc:identifier case).

> 
> Right. But, leaving aside the syntactic stuff, if I think I was also
> wondering whether there is a difficulty in the term definitions.
> 
> dc:identifier is defined as "An unambiguous reference to the resource
> within a given context".
> 
> and
> 
> dc:relation is defined as "A reference to a related resource."

Nice observation. I agree that the intention probably is to have them
represented differently.

> If (b) above applies (i.e. the value of dc:identifier is (always) an
> identifier (a resource of type some:Identifier)), and (as seems to me to
> be the case) the value of dc:relation is (usually) a resource of some
> type other than some:Identifier (unless I happen to be talking about an
> identifier as a related resource, but let's not, for the moment....),
> then there's no contradiction there. _But_ the current text of those
> definitions would probably lead me to expect both of those properties to
> take the _same_ class of resource as value.

This is problematic. I think this was written long before the pretty
elaborated AM now under discussion was even conceived... and the problem
did not arise.

/Mikael

-- 
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
The more things change, the more they stay the same

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

February 2024
January 2024
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
September 2022
August 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager