The comment in
http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-description says:
Description may include but is not limited to: an abstract, a table of
contents, a graphical representation, or a free-text account of the
resource.
On that basis dcterms:description is *not* limited to being a literal.
(I'm not sure if the comment makes it into the machine-readable
declaration of dcterms:description which is why you might have missed
it?).
Andy
--
Head of Development, Eduserv Foundation
http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/
http://efoundations.typepad.com/
[log in to unmask]
+44 (0)1225 474319
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DCMI Architecture Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce D'Arcus
> Sent: 21 May 2008 14:45
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: intended use of dcterms:description?
>
> I'm trying to wrap up an ontology that uses many of the new
> dcterms properties, with their new domains and ranges. But
> I'm confused by the intention behind a number of properties
> that specify both domains and ranges of rdfs:Resource. I
> recall from previous discussion that nobody wanted to make a
> decision that a title was a literal, so that there's some
> understanding that this is flexible. But what about
> dcterms:description? I assume a literal, but there's nothing
> in the document to make me feel comfortable with that. Can
> perhaps it either to be changed to have a range of Literal,
> or a note added that explains why not?
>
> Bruce
>
|