Re: The dcterm/schema.org issue: a proposal to move forward

On 8 October 2014 10:16, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
> On 04/10/14 08:06, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>>
>>> 1. We define a small set of core properties that we consider to be
>>> essential in the metadata. "We define" means that we specify the terms to be
>>> used in the metadata specification as well as their data types and intended
>>> meaning
>
>
> This makes sense though I do have one small question:
>
> By "we define" do you include giving it a w3c-csv:xyz URI then define
> skos:/rdfs:/owl: mappings to other vocabularies?  Or, if not, in what way is
> it different to defining a property or class?

That (creating an actual vocabulary definition) sounds the simplest
way of making sure we're precise. However we might not want to be more
precise than the mass-deployment vocabularies we're basing it on, and
both DC and schema.org are pretty flexible. And of course it is
comically close to http://xkcd.com/927/ ...

Dan

Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2014 09:30:35 UTC