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

On 27 Nov 2007, at 15:28, 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?

Data/Object Punning might arise from *changes* in modelling, for  
example, lifting from a weaker representation (RDF or a RDBMS) or a  
legacy representation (e.g., Old Skool DC).

While it might be bad modelling, I find it difficult to argue that  
these situations shouldn't be expressible (e.g., as a transition  
point between one style of representation and another).

Cheers,
Bijan.