Re: URIs as value

Dear Felix,

Sorry, I just bump into this thread (I still need to catch up with many 
more emails). So for clarifying the issue: I would also advocate 
to use URIs as much as we can as values for properties (like PA and 
Silvia said) and ...

> Just a general comment / remark: I know it sounds boring, but ... I 
> think we should focus on what is current, more or less widely deployed 
> practice with existing formats. After all we are scheduled to provide 
> interoperability between properties of these formats and not define new 
> ones.

... exactly because we would like to be interoperable with existing 
formats, I will remind that Dublin Core, in its January 2008 
recommendation version, add the notion of domain and range for its 
properties, So far, two 
legacy specifications differ with regard to whether properties such as 
dc:creator and dc:date have values that are non-literal resources (e.g. 
a Person or a Date, seen as entities), or literals representing the 
resources. The new RDF encoding specification supports both of these 
constructs but bases the choice of one form over the other on the range 
of a property. A property with a "literal" range will follow the former 
pattern, while a property with a "non-literal" range will follow the 
latter. A range of "Agent" has been given to dcterms:creator and 
dcterms:contributor, where "Agent" is defined as "A resource that acts 
or has the power to act".

>>> So I think both should be possible: string for simplicity, URI for
>>> expressivity. May be both could be mixed, e.g. like in mail addresses:
>>>  dc:creator "P-A. Champin <>" .

<> dc:creator <> is 
perfectly valid and I would add should be supported.


Raphaël Troncy
CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science),
Kruislaan 413, 1098 SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
e-mail: &
Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093
Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312

Received on Monday, 8 December 2008 22:30:42 UTC