W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > May 2004

Re: [OEP and PORT] "Classes as values": comments on usage of dc:s ubject

From: Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 18:02:35 -0700
Message-Id: <0FDD8334-9EF9-11D8-881D-000A958B5C28@smi.stanford.edu>
Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>

Hi Alistair,

> I think if approach 3 is going to stay in this note, then using the 
> SKOS
> vocab is a good idea, mainly because if everyone uses the same set of
> properties to organise their subject hierarchies (rather than everyone
> inventing their own), it makes sharing them even easier.  Also if 
> there is a
> clear spec on how they should be used, this helps to promote 
> consistent use
> and application.

agreed -- will change that.

> My current personal view on using dc:subject is that it should only be
> applied as in approach 3.  For other approaches, other properties 
> should be
> used (e.g. foaf:topic and foaf:primaryTopic).  This could lead to a 
> clear
> recommendation on which approach should be used with which property.  
> Then,
> when you come across a dc:subject property or a foaf:topic property, 
> you
> would know exactly what to expect.

This is where I would come back to the point of having only the bare 
essentials.. This note is not about proper usage of dc:subject. The 
only reason it's there is because subjects are a natural place where 
the need of using classes as values arise. There are many other use 
cases. Thinking about it more, perhaps using something other than 
dc:subject (just a local property subject?) could be a better idea to 
avoid touching on this issue. On the other hand, most people looking at 
a newly introduced subject property will immediately wonder why we are 
not using dc:subject. Will using some other property, say "topic" 
create less confusion? Any other suggestions?

If we do want to address the proper use (and best practice) of 
dc:subject, it can probably be in a different note that 
cross-references this one. So, understanding the use of dc;subject 
perhaps requires understanding this note but not the other way around.

Thoughts?

Natasha
Received on Wednesday, 5 May 2004 21:27:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:38 UTC