RE: SKOS 'concept schemes' and DCMI 'vocabulary encoding schemes'

Hi Pete,

> > 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. 

In snipping the above I was agreeing with you - [1] gives absolutely no indication that 'URI2' should be the URI of the scheme, and I can't make sense of the above sentence either.  

But if 'URI2' was the URI of the 'scheme', it would fit with current RDFS, OWL and SKOS practice. 

Cheers,

Al.


> 
> > 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 17:05:33 UTC