At this stage, in terms of DCMI process, the issue of assigning domains
and ranges is still on the table for discussion, some of which will
happen at the Usage Board and DC Architecture meetings in Mexico next
We have a proposed set of domains and ranges for all of the DCMI
propoerties in the Wiki:
for consideration. However, as noted here
assigning domains and ranges to DC properties that are already widely
used with literal string values is somewhat problematic. This
particularly applies to the properties in the DCMES - the original 15 DC
One proposal, therefore, is to replicate those 15 properties in the
DCTERMS namespace and only assign domains and ranges to the properties
in that namespace - leaving the 15 original elements unchanged.
I quite like this approach.
But it does mean that you need to wait for the 15 new properties in the
DCTERMS namespace (e.g. dcterms:creator) to be created and have domains
and ranges assigned to them before you can start making use of them.
Being realistic, I wouldn't expect this to happen before Easter 2007.
Head of Development, Eduserv Foundation
[log in to unmask]
+44 (0)1225 474319
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DCMI Architecture Group
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce D'Arcus
> Sent: 27 September 2006 14:23
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: ODF Metadata and DC
> I mentioned in a previous email my involvement in the
> OpenDocument Technical Committee and Metadata Subcommittee.
> I'd like some advice or perhaps a status update on where DC
> is WRT to one particular issue: the range problem,
> particularly as it related to dc:creator and the dcterms relations.
> Right now, ODF is not RDF (though is very close) and it
> treats all properties as string literals. I'd like to change
> that by using an RDF profile (indeed, I've already written
> one), and allow it to be used throughout the document. My use
> case, for example, is bibliographic citation data.
> I'm not sure how popular it would be within the ODF TC, but
> I'd like to suggest that we treat the above properties as
> having ranges of a resource. That would allow us to, for
> example, link a dc:creator to a contact resource, and for the
> bibliographic project to create sub-properties of it for the
> richer representation we need.
> So is there any consensus about resolving this issue within
> DC? Would it be OK to recommend the above to the ODF TC? Or
> better to just define our own property?