- From: Pete Johnston <p.johnston@ukoln.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:40:55 +0100
- To: "'Miles, AJ (Alistair)'" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, DC-RDF-TASKFORCE@jiscmail.ac.uk
- Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Quoting from [1] section 2.3 ... > > 'In the case where there is a URI, specifying the object we > want to use in it's relation with the scheme, we could make > an rdfs:isDefinedBy arc pointing to that URI. Such a triple > of RDF(S) properties hanging off a resource is what one may > call: Poor Man's Structured Values' I'm still not sure "specifying the object we want to use in it's relation with the scheme" says that the object of the rdfs:isDefinedBy is the URI of the encoding scheme though. I'm not sure what it says, really - English wasn't the writer's first language! But I think if Roland had meant URI2 to be the URI of the scheme, he would have used such a URI explicitly to make that point. And the example in the graph in 2.3.2 seems to suggest otherwise. > Oh, another thought, the only way I can see 'Vocabulary > Encoding Scheme' mapping to RDF as is, without changing the > AM, is to model them as RDF datatypes. I.e.: > > <http://www.example.com/somedoc> dc:subject > 'D08.586.682.075.400'^^dcterms:MESH. > > Although I certainly can't claim to understand the finer > points of how an RDF datatype maps a set of literal values to > resources, the notion of a datatype in RDF seems to fit best > with the notion of 'encoding' as it is described in the DCMI AM. > > Would it be possible to allow both e.g. ... [snip] I dunno.... I'll have to think about that! > Also, the pattern: > > <http://www.example.com/somedoc> dc:subject 'D08.586.682.075.400'^^dcterms:MESH. > > ... seems to also match closely the XML encoding of qualified DC, using xsi:type. Urgh... As I said in the DC Arch meeting http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/dc-xml-issues/ that's a mess, and it doesn't even provide a binding for the DCAM. So let's not argue from there! ;-) I have some proposals for alternatives that I have to get out to dc-arch for discussion, but I've been too busy with non-DC stuff since Madrid. But, yes, I'm inclined to agree that if the XML binding uses xsi:type at all (which is debatable as it then ties the binding to W3C XML Schema and not everyone likes that!), then it should use it for literal dataypes/syntax encoding schemes only. Pete
Received on Monday, 10 October 2005 16:39:49 UTC