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. 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. Instead of using rdf:value to relate a value to a
> DCAM Value String [1, section 4.6], David suggests using
> skos:prefLabel .
> 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 ,
> 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!
> Tom (at DC-2009, Seoul)
>  http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-rdf/#sect-4
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L2805
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L1541
> Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>