Re: [dxwg] Harmonization with ISO/IEC concepts (#722)

Makx - the Usage Board at DCMI has just concluded a round of discussions, but that's where it would have to go. I agree with you that DCMI is unlikely to adopt a more strict definition due to the fact that it serves a community that is much broader than ISO's community. The advantage of DCMI's definition is that it can *also* be used with formal standards, and those will be identified by their URI.

I see a kind of tension here between a desire to have semantics inherent in the properties ("dct:conformsTo" v. something more precise) and acceptance of objects as defining the precision. If the object is the identifier of an ISO standard, then the standard obviously meets the ISO definition. To me, the object is where that level of precision belongs, and trying to move the semantics to the property will 1) cause a great proliferation of properties 2) open up the possibility of conflicts between the property and the object (e.g. if property includes ISO definition of standard but the object does not). Note also that the rule for URIs in linked data is that the URI link to useful information about the object, which is where one should find a description of the type of standard that one is linking to.

GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 4 February 2019 15:59:49 UTC