To take the simplest example from http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-rdf/:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
xmlns:ex="http://example.org/taxonomy/"
xmlns:dcam="http://purl.org/dc/dcam/">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/123">
<dcterms:subject>
<rdf:Description>
<dcam:memberOf rdf:resource="http://example.org/taxonomy/MyVocab"/>
<rdf:value>Ornitology</rdf:value>
</rdf:Description>
</dcterms:subject>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
I presume that under these proposals this would become:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
xmlns:ex="http://example.org/taxonomy/"
xmlns:skos="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/123">
<dcterms:subject>
<rdf:Description>
<skos:inScheme rdf:resource="http://example.org/taxonomy/MyVocab"/>
<skos:prefLabel>Ornitology</skos:prefLabel>
</rdf:Description>
</dcterms:subject>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
??
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 Dan Brickley
> Sent: 15 October 2009 08:29
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Proposed change to expression of DCAM in RDF
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > David Wood suggests two changes in how DCAM constructs are
> > represented in RDF [1]:
> >
> > 1. Instead of using dcam:memberOf to relate a value to a
> > DCAM Vocabulary Encoding Scheme [1, section 4.5], David
> > suggests using skos:inScheme [2].
> >
> > 2. Instead of using rdf:value to relate a value to a
> > DCAM Value String [1, section 4.6], David suggests using
> > skos:prefLabel [3].
> >
> > Some first reactions:
> >
> > -- The domain of skos:inScheme was left unspecified in
> > order to provide the flexibility to extend a concept scheme
> > with classes of resource other than skos:Concept (i.e., the use
> > of skos:inScheme does not imply that the subject is a concept).
> > Also, skos:inScheme is better-known than dcam:memberOf.
> > So #1 seems like a sound idea.
> >
> > -- The domain of skos:prefLabel was also left unspecified [3],
> > so its use does not imply that the subject of a statement is
> > a SKOS concept. On the other hand, I believe the
> > correct use of rdf:value has long been unclear.
> > So #2 seems like a good idea too, though as part of such a
> > change we would need to understand better where the problem
> > with rdf:value lies.
>
> I'm generally supportive of this, on the thinking that having the
> skos: namespace in scope is going to be more useful for most
> apps/people than having the rdf: or dcam: namespaces there. This is an
> important consideration in particular for XHTML/RDFa deployments where
> issues of markup elegance are of greater concern.
>
> It would be nice to see a few examples set out in a wiki, though...
>
> Sorry I can't be there in Seoul!
>
> cheers,
>
> Dan
>
> > Tom (at DC-2009, Seoul)
> >
> > [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-rdf/#sect-4
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L2805
> > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L1541
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>
> >
|