I agree that it seems to make sense to assert something like:
<http://libris.kb.se/resource/bib/10028334> dct:subject
<http://libris.kb.se/resource/auth/198702> .
<http://libris.kb.se/resource/auth/198702> a foaf:Person .
Actually. the Royal Library of Sweden are already following this usage
pattern--albeit using dce instead of dct [1].
Bernard, is it correct to say that the range you are suggesting would
not limit the types of object resources that can be used with
dct:subject, and that it will only allow an inferences to be made
about subjects? My only concern with defining the range in this way is
that it may unintentionally inhibit some valuable use patterns for
dct:subject; and the benefit of doing it remains unclear to me.
Is limiting the type of object involved in a dct:subject statement
already a use case for application profiles?
//Ed
[1] http://libris.kb.se/data/bib/10028334?format=application%2Frdf%2Bxml
|