ons 2006-09-27 klockan 22:11 +0100 skrev Pete Johnston:
> The dcterms properties which are currently subproperties of DCMES properties could be subproperties of both the DCMES property and the new cloned property, right?
Yes, even implicitly as you described. (dcterms:modified -> dcterms:date
-> dc:date).
That was certainly what I personally had in mind.
/Mikael
>
> i.e.
>
> dcterms:modified rdfs:range someclass:Period .
> dcterms:date rdfs:range someclass:Period .
>
> dcterms:modified rdfs:subpropertyOf dcterms:date .
> dcterms:modified rdfs:subpropertyOf dc:date .
>
> And probably better would be:
>
> dcterms:modified rdfs:range someclass:Period .
> dcterms:date rdfs:range someclass:Period .
>
> dcterms:modified rdfs:subpropertyOf dcterms:date .
> dcterms:date rdfs:subpropertyOf dc:date .
>
> I guess it depends whether we want systems to go on inferring the dc:date triple - but I think we will? We want to continue to support systems that only grok the current DCMES 15. i.e we want systems that find
>
> doc:x dcterms:modified date:y .
>
> to infer not only
>
> doc:x dcterms:date date:y .
>
> but also
>
> doc:x dc:date date:y .
>
> Neither of these approaches above would imply a range for dc:date, so they don't break any of the systems using literal values for dc:date.
>
> Pete
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DCMI Architecture Group on behalf of Dan Brickley
> Sent: Wed 9/27/2006 7:02 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: ODF Metadata and DC
>
> Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> > On Sep 27, 2006, at 10:54 AM, Pete Johnston wrote:
> >
> >> I think the suggestion was that we _do_ assert domains/ranges for those
> >> properties, on the grounds that - based on the dat Mikael got via
> >> Swoogle - they are much less widely used than the DCMES 15. So, yes,
> >> there would be an impact, but less so than if we did it for the DCMES
> >> 15.
> >
> > So in that case, you'd assert domains/ranges for them, AND change them
> > to be sub-properties of the new dcterms properties?
>
> Sounds like a plan. Is tommorrow too soon to implement it?
>
> Dan
>
--
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
|