Re: [dxwg] Following the recommendation to use dct:type prevents using SKOS-based reference datasets or standard rdf typing (#1362)

Thank you for raising this issue (and thank you @kcoyle for drawing my attention to it)!

FWIW, I agree that `rdfs:Class` now seems overly restrictive as a range for `dcterms:type`.  We did not foresee your perfectly reasonable use case when ranges were assigned back in 2008.

In a [paper we wrote in 2015](, @aisaac and I pointed out that the semantically more informal `dc:type` (i.e., ``) "does not require an RDFS orOWL class as its object, contrary to rdf:type, which strictly indicates aninstance-class link in the sense of RDFS and OWL" and is therefore a good choice to use with SKOS concepts.

That said, the distinction between the `dc:` and `dcterms:` namespaces is perhaps less relevant (or clear) than it once seemed. In DCMI, we still take the [Namespace Policy]( quite seriously, but that did not stop us from loosening a few ranges for the [latest version of DCMI Metadata Terms]( and the related standard, ISO 15836 Part 2. In my personal opinion, adherence to principle must be tempered by recognition of evolving practice; to me, it is more problematic to tighten semantics than to loosen.

The range of `dcterms:type` has been on the radar of the DCMI usage Board for awhile. If there is support on this list for dropping the range, or loosening it to `rangeIncludes` -- or opposition to either idea -- I would appreciate hearing your views either way!

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

Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in

Received on Monday, 17 May 2021 17:16:30 UTC