thanks - again - this is fine - we are not trying to redefine it - but
just to get it right...
Liddy
On 09/03/2010, at 7:16 PM, Andy Powell wrote:
> Or, to put it another way... DC already defines 'resource' to be
> rdfs:Resource (see the Abstract Model glossary):
>
> resource (http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource)
> Anything that might be identified. Familiar examples include an
> electronic document, an image, a service (for example, "today's
> weather report for Los Angeles"), and a collection of other
> resources. Not all resources are network "retrievable"; for example,
> human beings, corporations, concepts and bound books in a library
> can also be considered resources.
>
> So 'resource' doesn't need to be (and indeed shouldn't be) defined
> differently if you are using DC as the core of MLR.
>
> If you are defining the "domain of the terms" (properties?) in an
> RDFS sense, then a domain of Resource is assumed I think - it
> doesn't need to be stated explicitly. ??
>
> Andy
> --
> Andy Powell
> Research Programme Director
> Eduserv
>
> t: 01225 474319
> m: 07989 476710
> twitter: @andypowe11
> blog: efoundations.typepad.com
>
> www.eduserv.org.uk
> ________________________________________
> From: DCMI Architecture Forum [[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Dan Brickley [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 09 March 2010 07:47
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: ISO ....Metadata for Learning Resources
>
> On 9 Mar 2010, at 08:26, Liddy Nevile <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> We are using DC as the core for the new MLR but to do this properly
>> we need a definition for 'resource' as the domain of the terms. What
>> do we have, please? or what do you recommend?
>
> Why do you think you need this?
>
> Can you give any examples of things that are *not* in this class
> 'Resource'? If not then it is just the default all-inclusive class
> that Rdfs calls rdfs:Resource (and OWL calls 'Thing').
>
> Cheers
>
> Dan
|