I agree that these can't be considered equivalent. The RDF Primer (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/) says this about rdf:value:
"RDF provides a predefined rdf:value property to describe the main value (if there is one) of a structured value."
And, as you say, the SKOS Reference (http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#labels) says the following about skos:prefLabel:
"The preferred and alternative labels are useful when generating or creating human-readable representations of a knowledge organization system. These labels provide the strongest clues as to the meaning of a SKOS concept."
So it comes down to which is more appropriate for what we want to achieve?
The use of skos:prefLabel doesn't look too unreasonable to me - indeed to a great extent, that SKOS wording captures quite nicely what I had understood us to be doing with our current use of rdf:value... providing a string to be displayed to human readers.
Am I missing something?
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 Karen Coyle
> Sent: 15 October 2009 15:25
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Proposed change to expression of DCAM in RDF
>
> #2 - Although the domain of skos:prefLabel is unspecified, the property
> does have a semantic definition and some "partner" properties (altLabel
> and hiddenLabel) that have meaning. The documentation says:
>
> "The preferred and alternative labels are useful when generating or
> creating human-readable representations of a knowledge organization
> system. These labels provide the strongest clues as to the meaning of a
> SKOS concept."
>
> This, to me, is quite different from the use of "value" in DCAM, and
> the
> fact that the term "label" is used here is significant. I don't think
> the two can be considered equivalent.
>
> kc
>
> Thomas Baker 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.
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
> -----------------------------------
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> [log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
> ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
> fx.: 510-848-3913
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------
|