As has been told many times, the usage of DC is today so widespread that
the Library community is only a part of (and maybe even a fraction of)
the user community. According to some estimates, after the core SW
namespaces (rdf, rdfs, owl), the DC namespace is the largest single
namespace used on the Semantic Web. We should not forget that.
I think our options here are:
1. the ranges are *not* restricted. Ie, one could use datatypes
directly, or more complex solutions
2. the ranges are defined with the help of OWL's union facility. This
union should refer to the xsd datatypes that we want for a specific
predicate, plus more complex classes that are required/used by the
Frankly, I do not see any other solution. The current approach, in my
view, penalizes a large user community...
Diane I. Hillmann wrote:
> In library-land, named dates/periods are the rule, rather than the
> exception. Occasionally the labels include dates as well as names (as
> part of the same string), but the intention is to be human readable.
> I think the same situation extends to museums.
>> On Feb 21, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Pete Johnston wrote:
>>> I think one of the reasons for proposing non-literal ranges is that
>>> implementers have occasionally wanted to use human-readable labels for
>>> dates/periods e.g.
>> But emphasis on "occasionally" yes? It's not standard practice by any
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html