> Yes... I suppose I'm barking up the wrong modeling tree.
> am just worried about the alignment of the definition of
> resource being identical to concept in a VES. This is the
> sheep example. You never have a sheep in a VES. You always
> have a description of sheep. If the model accounts for this
> already, then I'm happy. It just doesn't seem to read to me
> that way. It reads that you can have a set of sheep that is
> a VES. So that I might line up 10 fuzzy creatures (that are
> all addressable by URI) and call it a VES. This seems to be
> a weak instantiation of a VES, but one that is consistent
> with the DCAM. Is that the case?
Yes. A VES is a set of resources of any type. A set of ten sheep can be
a VES, as can a set of ten places, or a set of ten concepts.
A member of a VES never actually occurs in a statement within a DC
description (except for the literal case): the things that occur in a
statement are references to, or representations of, the members of the
> If not, where have I gone
> wrong in my interpretation of what is given in the DCAM?
I think your interpretation of what the DCAM is saying is correct.
But I don't grasp why it's a problem - other than that it's a somewhat
(!) "non-intuitive" use of the term "vocabulary"! ;-)
Technical Researcher, Eduserv Foundation
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)1225 474323