Re: Why not use DC?

On 18/6/09 02:48, Renato Iannella wrote:
> In Section 4.1.2 of <>
> abut 11 of the Core Properties are the same as Dublin Core - why not use
> that namespace?

One argument might be reduced scope, however in

"[Definition: Media Resource]

     Any Resource (as defined by [RFC 3986]) related to a media content. 
Note that [RFC 3986] points out that a resource may be retrievable or 
not. Hence, this term encompasses the abstract notion of a movie (e.g. 
Notting Hill) as well as the binary encoding of this movie (e.g. the 
MPEG-4 encoding of Notting Hill on my DVD), or any intermediate levels 
of abstraction (e.g. the director's cut or the plane version of Notting 
Hill). Although some ontologies (FRBR, BBC) define concepts for 
different such levels of abstraction, our ontology does not commit to 
any classification of media resources."'s clear that a "Media Resource" can be anything, since "related 
to" is completely unconstrained.

Another might be that DC is simply one of 25+ schemes investigated, all 
of which have some common aspects. Why bless DC rather than the others? 
A DC response here would be that Dublin Core is intended to be a 
lightweight common core, created for just such purposes, ie. mixing 
information across domains.

Regarding's very interesting to see SKOS's mapping constructs used here and 
that seems worth continuing, but I'd also encourage the use of the 
rdfs:subPropertyOf construct, since it can handle the case mentioned in where x 
exif:artist y implies x dc:creator y.

Having said that, I haven't seen a recent version of the mapping table 
(it's not in the TR) so ignore this comment if subPropertyOf is already 



Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 07:31:56 UTC