> Yes, that's what I should have written and reflects how I
> have always interpreted coverage.
But according to the AGLS spec
agls:jurisdiction is defined as a refinement (subproperty) of
That means that every time you say
thing:x agls:jurisdiction some:place .
thing:x dc:coverage some:place .
So the use of dc:coverage in AGLS _does_ imply that dc:coverage extends
to jurisdiction/applicability too, and it is not limited to "aboutness".
What I understood Stuart to be saying the other day was that his
application used some:jurisdiction _without_ asserting the
refinement/subproperty relation - precisely because they believed that
dc:coverage was strictly for "aboutness" and such a subproperty
assertion would be inconsistent.