ons 2009-09-02 klockan 11:42 +0100 skrev Andy Powell:
> > With no intented hair-splitting, in which document is it formally
> explicited?
>
> I’m looking at
>
> http://dublincore.org/documents/domain-range/
>
> (but I confess to being somewhat out of date with my knowledge of the
> status of any of these documents).
Well, it seems that statement went missing in the completed RDF schema.
In any case, rdfs:Resource is in the range of every property, so the
statement does not really give any additional information that can be
used for inferences (more than the intent, possibly).
So, a missing range is the same as a range of rdfs:Resource (which
includes literals). The intent is to actually restrict the range, or to
declare it an ObjectProperty.
/Mikael
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Andy Powell
> Research Programme Director
> Eduserv
>
>
>
>
> [log in to unmask]
> 01225 474319 / 07989 476710
>
>
> www.eduserv.org.uk
>
> efoundations.typepad.com
>
>
> twitter.com/andypowe11
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> From:DCMI Architecture Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Bernard Vatant
> Sent: 02 September 2009 11:18
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: rdfs:range for dcterms:subject and other "open-range"
> properties
>
>
>
>
> Hi Andy
>
> 2009/9/2 Andy Powell <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > I understand therefore your take on this as being a non-issue, and
> it's up to applications to deal with the absence of range.
>
>
> That is my understanding (except that I disagree with your assertion
> that the range is missing – it’s not missing, it is explicitly set to
> rdfs:Resource).
>
>
>
> With no intented hair-splitting, in which document is it formally
> explicited? It's neither in
> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/ nor in
> http://dublincore.org/2008/01/14/dcterms.rdf as far as I can see.
>
>
> > OTOH, as an informative note, could DC suggest/recommend as
> a best practice to use some classes, such as skos:Concept?
>
>
> I tend to agree, and think there’s probably room for this kind
> of guidance in
>
> Guidelines for Dublin Core Application Profiles (Working
> Draft)
>
> http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2008/09/berlin/dcap-guidelines/
>
>
> though I’m not overly clear what status that document has?
>
> Something like “Where the value of dc:subject is “an idea or
> notion”, recommended best practice is to use a skos:Concept.”
>
>
>
> I guess SKOS folks would be very happy with that.
>
>
>
> (Note: I’m making the assumption here that this is indeed
> recommended best practice!).
>
>
>
> It's indeed recommended or strongly suggested from the SKOS viewpoint.
> See http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#secindexing
> "While the SKOS vocabulary itself does not include a mechanism for
> associating an arbitrary resource with askos:Concept, implementors can
> turn to other vocabularies. Dublin Core, for instance, provides a
> dct:subject property ..."
>
> Actually as a reminder there used to be in the first SKOS versions a
> skos:subject property which was deprecated under the rationale that it
> was already defined by DC.
>
>
> Bernard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Eduserv has moved office! For details visit
> www.eduserv.org.uk/contacts
|