- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 23:31:26 +0100
- To: "Houghton,Andrew" <houghtoa@oclc.org>
- Cc: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Houghton,Andrew wrote: >I support this change as well, dcmitype:image seems better than using FOAF. > > FWIW I'll make foaf:Image a subclass of the dc image class ie. <dcterms:DCMIType rdf:about="http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Image"> ...since images are slightly closer to DC's core business than FOAF's. Dan >Andy. > >-----Original Message----- >From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Miles, AJ (Alistair) >Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 7:19 AM >To: public-esw-thes@w3.org >Subject: RE: SKOS public working drafts > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: S�ren Roug [mailto:Soren.Roug@eea.eu.int] >>Sent: 07 June 2005 15:11 >>To: Miles, AJ (Alistair) >>Subject: RE: SKOS public working drafts >> >>I'm surprised the altSymbol has foaf:Image as range. The Image class >>in http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/ seems more appropiate. After all, >>Dublin Core elements are more likely to be known by thesauri >>developers than FOAF. >> >> > >I'd be willing to support this change, if other's agreed this was a good idea. > >Cheers, > >Al. > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 27 June 2005 22:31:31 UTC