> It looks like you bookmarked a discussion version of that document
> (for the Berlin Usage Board meeting) with bad headers. My mistake!
Nope... a Google search for "DCAP dublin core" found it for me (as 2nd hit)! YMMV...
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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DCMI Architecture Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Thomas Baker
> Sent: 02 September 2009 16:51
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: rdfs:range for dcterms:subject and other "open-range"
> properties
>
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 11:03:02AM +0100, Andy Powell wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> It looks like you bookmarked a discussion version of that document
> (for the Berlin Usage Board meeting) with bad headers. My mistake!
>
> The current document is [1], and it is a Recommended Resource,
> meaning that it is a document that did not go through the full
> process of Working Draft to Proposed Recommendation to
> Recommendation used for technical specifications (though comment
> periods were held).
>
> I have created a redirect from [2], which will become active at
> the next Web build, so if anyone else has bookmarked this early
> draft they will be redirected to the latest version of
> /profile-guidelines/. Thank you for pointing it out and my
> apologies for the inconvenience!
>
> Tom
>
> [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/profile-guidelines/
> [2] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcap-guidelines/
>
> >
> > Something like "Where the value of dc:subject is "an idea or notion",
> recommended best practice is to use a skos:Concept."
> >
> > (Note: I'm making the assumption here that this is indeed recommended
> best practice!).
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Andy Powell
> > Research Programme Director
> > Eduserv
> >
> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > 01225 474319 / 07989 476710
> > www.eduserv.org.uk<http://www.eduserv.org.uk>
> > efoundations.typepad.com<http://efoundations.typepad.com/>
> > twitter.com/andypowe11<http://twitter.com/andypowe11>
> > ________________________________
> > From: DCMI Architecture Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Bernard Vatant
> > Sent: 02 September 2009 10:42
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: rdfs:range for dcterms:subject and other "open-range"
> properties
> >
> > Hi Tom
> > 2009/9/1 Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> > As I understand, rdfs:Resource is
> > already (by default) the formal range of dcterms:subject, and
> > the machines already know that skos:Concept is a sub-class of
> > rdfs:Resource.
> >
> >
> > 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. For example you can
> restrict for your application the effective range to e.g., skos:Concept,
> and even restrict it to the instances of skos:Concept available in the
> local data base (e.g. I've downloaded a part of LCSH and I want my
> application users to use only those as values of dct:subject). So whatever
> the system restrictions, if I export the metadata, they would be
> conformant to DC recommendation. I can happily live with this.
> >
> > OTOH, as an informative note, could DC suggest/recommend as a best
> practice to use some classes, such as skos:Concept?
> >
> >
> > The sub-class of rdfs:Resource and superclass of skos:Concept
> > that we were looking for in the Usage Board was one that would
> > somehow exclude the class rdfs:Literal. At least, that is what
> > we thought we needed at the time (three years ago). I have also
> > heard the issue of a class for non-literals come up in other
> > contexts and wonder whether the ongoing lack of such a class is
> > currently on anyone's issue list.
> >
> > Out of my hat, if the DCMI model was upgraded from RDFS to OWL-DL, and
> dct:subject declared as an owl:ObjectProperty, it would prevent the use of
> data values. So I guess people who want to make data and object properties
> distinct move to OWL-DL instead of trying to resolve the issue in RDFS.
> >
> > Bernard
> >
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Eduserv has moved office! For details visit www.eduserv.org.uk/contacts
>
> --
> Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>
Eduserv has moved office! For details visit www.eduserv.org.uk/contacts
|