Re: SKOS public working drafts

More to the point, types of document seems much more like a core concern  
of Dublin Core, so it seems more appropriate to use their terms, and make  
sure that they get them right, than to use this one from FOAF. For the  
same reason, I would argue that it was a bad idea to use something other  
than FOAF for a term describing a person...

So yes, in this case I support  the change.

Cheers

Chaals

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 01:09:33 +1000, Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl> wrote:

> I'm under the impression that DC is more stable than FOAF (am I
> correct?). So if the DC class has the same meaning there's no reason
> not to use it.

>
> Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Søren Roug [mailto:Soren.Roug@eea.eu.int]

>>>
>>> I'm surprised the altSymbol has foaf:Image as range. The Image class  
>>> in http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/ seems more appropiate. After all,  
>>> Dublin Core elements are more likely to be known by thesauri  
>>> developers than FOAF.
>>   I'd be willing to support this change, if other's agreed this was a  
>> good idea.
>>  Cheers,
>>  Al.

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile                              chaals@opera.com
          hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk
   Here's one we prepared earlier:   http://www.opera.com/download

Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 23:19:57 UTC