W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > April 2007

Re: OWL version of Dublin Core?

From: Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:59:38 +0200
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Yoshio Fukushige <fukushige.yoshio@jp.panasonic.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
Message-Id: <1177581578.7208.19.camel@daneel>

A short comment on this....

Well, there's a lot of implied but not expressed semantics in the DC
properties. We're moving towards expressing at least the domain/range
stuff, but we have a way to go before we approach OWL ontologies,

That said, I think that it *would* be in line with the definition of
isPartOf to say it's transitive. I can't see any arguments against.

Of course, talking to DC-ARCH before doing that is a good idea...

/Mikael

tor 2007-04-26 klockan 11:44 +0200 skrev Ivan Herman:
> Elisa already referred to this but let me just reiterate and maybe add
> some more details
> 
> The DCMI is currently working on bringing the DC metadata and the RDF
> worlds closer together. They have a second round of commenting on the
> following documents right now:
> 
> http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/04/02/dc-rdf/
> http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/04/02/abstract-model/
> 
> and comment period is still open. Comments can be done by signing up to:
> 
> http://jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=dc-architecture&A=1
> 
> I copy this mail to Mikael Nilsson, who may not be reading this mailing
> list, to give possibly more context.
> 
> I think this discussion is important, it is exactly on time...
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
> Yoshio Fukushige wrote:
> > Hi, This may be a FAQ, but are there OWL versions of
> > Dublin Core Vocabularies?
> > 
> > I checked their official page[1], but there seem to be no
> > such versions.
> > 
> > If not, is there any widely-used ontology that refines the
> > DC Vocabularies in OWL?
> > 
> > Or are there unofficial versions that are in discussion / under review by DC people?
> > 
> > My current problem is that I want a transitive version of 
> > http://purl.org/dc/terms/isPartOf .
> > 
> > Should I use a property in other major vocabularies, 
> > for example 
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/part.owl#partOf
> > (I'm not sure if it is major, though)
> > 
> > Or defining my own transitive property as a subPropertyOf 
> > http://purl.org/dc/terms/isPartOf 
> > would make more sense?
> > 
> > [1] http://dublincore.org/
> > 
> > Best,
> > Yoshio Fukushige
> > 
> 
-- 
<mikael@nilsson.name>

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2007 09:59:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:15 GMT