- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 15:45:57 -0400
- To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Cc: "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
Hi Jeff,
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:54:08PM -0400, Jeff Young wrote:
> In principle, the newer dcterms:creator element could be upgraded to
> owl:ObjectProperty because its rdfs:range setting doesn't allow literals
> <http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-creator>.
This possibility has been raised before, but as Jonathan Rees pointed
out on the pedantic-web list [1]:
The DC terms are very popular, and in particular many users of OWL
(and OWL-DL in particular) use them or adapt data sources that use
them. The practice is generally to make a copy of DC and then edit it
to turn it into an OWL or OWL-DL file. The popular ontology editor
Protege even provides such a DC variant as part of its distribution.
I think users would be served better by having a common OWL-DL version
of DC, whether provided by DCMI or by someone else. Protege's is close
to being such (although it is based on dc: elements instead of dct:
terms). One problem is the question of whether the properties should
be annotation properties or object/data properties, which matters for
DL. IIUC Protege takes the position that the dc: properties are all
annotation properties, while Bibo says that the dct: properties are
object/data properties. I could fully sympathize if DCMI didn't want
to get into the middle of this feud.
Tom
[1] http://tinyurl.com/4vplrww
--
Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 19:46:51 UTC