Re: ISSUE-65 (excess vocab): REPORTED: excessive duplication of vocabulary

ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote:
> Ivan Herman wrote:
>> Well... I did meet one example. DCMI (the organization behind the Dublin
>> Core metadata) is having problems exactly on that. They have an abstract
>> model document[1] where they speak about 'value surrogate' that can
>> either be a literal or non-literal. When mapping this abstract model to
>> RDF[2] they hit this problem (eg, is the value of a dcterm:subject
>> property a literal or not).
> 
> I personally think that this example illustrates plain bad modelling 
> practice. Can you point to some discussion of the motivations for this 
> choice which might modify my view?
> 

Hm. Not directly. There is a mailing list:

DC-ARCHITECTURE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK

to which you could sign up, I suppose, but I am not sure you want
that... There is probably an archive somewhere... But I was not involved
in the discussions around those 'surrogate'-s, so I really cannot say.

However. While I do not want to defend their modelling practice, we have
to acknowledge that they are there, they exist, and they represent a
major community (through the DCMI we get to the whole library community
which is not a small one) that we may want to serve by providing punning
of datatype/object properties. That is all...

Ivan

> -Evan
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf