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
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.
Tom (at DC-2009, Seoul)
Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>