Re: Dublin Core prefixes in OA

Hi Rob,
the recommendation in my previous email was just to revise the prefixes,
not to drop dc for terms.
At the moment, I am not expecting anything else in the current model to
change.

Best,
Paolo



On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> Tom, and all,
>
> I admit to being one of those confused by the ranges for some of the
> fields in terms.  For example, in Open Annotation we use elements:format
> for the media type of the resource as a literal.   The range of
> terms:format is a class, terms:MediaTypeOrExtent, meaning that the object
> of a triple with the predicate terms:format should be an instance of that
> class, and thus not a literal.  Similarly dc:language, and
> dcterms:LinguisticSystem.
>
> We use dcterms:conformsTo with oa:FragmentSelector to convey the
> specification for the fragment in rdf:value.
>
> And those are the only uses of elements or terms directly in the model.
>
> So, if terms:format "text/html" and terms:language "en" are (somehow,
> please explain?) possible, then I would be happy to stop using elements,
> and use dc for terms.  On the other hand, as we currently make much greater
> use of elements than terms, I'm not in favor of the change as the model
> stands.  It's "just a prefix" but it's a commonly used and understood one.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:24:54AM -0500, Paolo Ciccarese wrote:
>> > He pointed out that while we are absolutely free to pick our own prefix
>> > definitions, we could consider of aligning them with the prefixes of the
>> > RDFa core context: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1
>> >
>> > In particular, that would mean to map
>> > dc = http://purl.org/dc/terms/
>> > dc11 = http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
>> >
>> > It seems, the DC folks recommended those prefixes to the RDFa WG because
>> > they want to slowly deprecate the old 1.1 elements.
>> >
>> > It is probably not crucial but, in general, I think it is probably a
>> good
>> > idea to align our context with existing ones in the same ecosystem.
>>
>> +1 to align with RDFa core context
>>
>> As I recall it, the mapping of dc: to /terms/ came about because this is
>> what the RDFa community preferred at the time, and DCMI had no objection.
>> After all, they are "just prefixes"... ;-)
>>
>> This has, alas, created some confusion for those who had mapped dc: to
>> /elements/1.1/, though the existence of range-less and ranged properties
>> in
>> parallel has been a problem since ranges were introduced in January 2008.
>>
>> DCMI "gently promotes" the ranged properties of /terms/ while avoiding
>> the word
>> "deprecate" because part of the community feels that the range-less
>> properties
>> may in some cases be preferable.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> --
>> Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Dr. Paolo Ciccarese
http://www.paolociccarese.info/
Biomedical Informatics Research & Development
Instructor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School
Assistant in Neuroscience at Mass General Hospital
Member of the MGH Biomedical Informatics Core
+1-857-366-1524 (mobile)   +1-617-768-8744 (office)

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the addressee(s),
may contain information that is considered
to be sensitive or confidential and may not be forwarded or disclosed to
any other party without the permission of the sender.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately.