- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 20:18:11 +0900
- To: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Hi Raphael, all, now the sorry is on my side, being on travel after the f2f meeting ... Raphaël Troncy さんは書きました: > > Dear Felix, > > Sorry, I just bump into this thread (I still need to catch up with > many more emails). So for clarifying the issue: > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6219 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, http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-rdf-notes/. 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". What worries me here is what to decide about the API: if there is a method getCreator, what should it provide? The "before January 2008" value, e.g. a string value of dc:creator, or the the new version, that is URIs? > >>>> 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 <http://champin.net/foaf.rdf#me>" . > > Consequently: > <http://www.example.com> dc:creator <http://champin.net/foaf.rdf#me> > is perfectly valid and I would add should be supported. It seems the only solution would be to say: getCreator can give you <http://www.example.com> dc:creator <http://champin.net/foaf.rdf#me> is perfectly valid and I would add should be supported. or <http://www.example.com> dc:creator "me" and the application has to figure out what to do with this. I had mentioned this problem before in this thread, but I'm not sure about a solution yet - and whether a solution is necessary to be provided by us. Felix
Received on Saturday, 13 December 2008 11:18:55 UTC