- From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:17:51 +0100
- To: Aaron Rubinstein <arubinst@library.umass.edu>
- Cc: pedantic-web@googlegroups.com, nathan@webr3.org, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi,
2009/11/18 Aaron Rubinstein <arubinst@library.umass.edu>:
>
>
> Niklas Lindström wrote:
[...]
>>>>>>
>>>>> How about dct:references <http://purl.org/dc/terms/references>?
>>>>> Defined as "A related resource that is referenced, cited, or otherwise
>>>>> pointed to by the described resource.", I figure it is about as
>>>>> generic as any "unlabelled" hypertext link.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Niklas
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Ah! yes, that's even better that my sioc:links_to and foaf:topic
>>>> suggestions :-)
>>>>
>>> perhaps dct:relation is more suited?
>>>
>>> dct:Relation
>>> A related resource.
>>>
>>> dct:References
>>> A related resource that is referenced, cited, or otherwise pointed to by
>>> the described resource.
>>>
>>> thoughts?
>>
>> Ah, yes, better still! The dct:relation is a subPropertyOf
>> dct:references, so that seems to be the "most" generic one. And Dublin
>> Core is nicely generic, so I doubt you'd imply anything unintended by
>> using dct:relation.
[...]
>
> I believe it's the other way around, which would make dct:references ideal
> in every way ;)
Ouch! Yes I certainly meant that. My bad. For the record (verified by tools):
dct:references rdfs:subPropertyOf dct:relation .
Thus dct:relation is the most generic of the two. Which as Nathan says
makes it (dct:relation) suitable for "some relation to" (by being
mentioned) and dct:references for explicit references/citations.
(According to my interpretation of course.)
Best regards,
Niklas
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 18:18:49 UTC