On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 11:51, Pete Johnston wrote:
> Can the subject and object of a statement using the dc:identifier
> property be the _same_ resource?
I'd say it can, but it says something else than what was probably
<uri1> <dc:identifier> <uri1>
means that the resource serves as an identifier for itself, which I
suppose is trivially true. In other words: if I want to give an
identifier for me, I can give myself (yes, the whole, physical me).
But it's not a very interesting statement to make.
What we're seeing here (in T1) is, I think, a nice example of a more
general issue when expressing your own information in given frameworks,
in this case RDF:
You're using the framework as a *pure syntax*, ignoring the fact that
there is built-in semantics in the model.
This is different between XML and RDF, as XML has no (or almost no)
built-in semantics, while RDF does.
It's important that a mapping DC -> RDF or DC -> XYZ preserves the
semantics of DC, while not conflicting with the semantics of RDF (or
XYZ). This is not always so easy (LOM -> RDF is of course my best
example of a problematic situation).
I don't know if this discussion helped anyone, but it makes sense to me
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
The more things change, the more they stay the same