Simon Raboczi <raboczi@PIsoftware.com> wrote: > I basically agree with this, but I'd suggest doing it as a non-binary > relation (RDF M&S section 7.3) and using rdf:value instead of (or in > addition to) dc:title. The RDF processor might not know that the property > dc:title is more appropriate than the others as a default literal value. > It does know that rdf:value is special. Yes, but in this situation, I think rdf:value might be too special. rdf:value seems to imply that the other properties are qualifications of the primary value, not properties of a resource. The example given in the spec is: rdf:value "500" ; :measurement :pounds . resulting in "500 pounds". We're not doing that here, we're instead providing a title, so dc:title is more appropriate. I'm a member of the DCMI Architecture WG and we're working on a "dumb-down" system to allow Dublin Core and RDF applications to receive literal values from complex data like this. Using dc:title and rdfs:label are both acceptable according to the spec. More information and a demo at: http://zoe.mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE/dc/ -- [ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]Received on Sunday, 22 April 2001 14:13:02 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Friday, 25 March 2005 11:19:17 GMT