- From: aisaac via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 18:30:27 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> Other members do not read in the definition of dcterms:subject the possibility to use literals. They read "a literal value that identifies the subject" as a literal embedded in a blank node having the actual lexical representation of the subject as an rdfs:label". The last update of DCMI Terms was meant to soften formal commitments and ease interoperability with more 'classical' data representations. It would be quite a disappointment if the outcome would be that the new spec foresees blank nodes being used place of simple literals. For the record the ISO spec at https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:15836:-2:ed-1:v1:en mentions: > 3.1.6 > non-literal value > either a blank node or URI (3.1.13) So this means that if the idea was to refer to blank nodes, the definition of dcterms:subject would have used the phrase "non-literal value", not "literal value". I have dug up an old issue from the DCMI Usage board about the note for dcterms:subject: https://github.com/dcmi/usage/issues/45 . Interestingly, @kcoyle had proposed a wording that was clearer: "A literal value may be used if the controlled vocabulary does not use URIs." Even though it seems that she wasn't happy with the wording of the entire note, and we opted for the slightly more convoluted form in the end, I hope this clarifies the intent of the group at the time the change was made. -- GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/175#issuecomment-861736993 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2021 18:30:55 UTC