Re: Dublin Core prefixes in OA

Tom, and all,

I admit to being one of those confused by the ranges for some of the fields
in terms.  For example, in Open Annotation we use elements:format for the
media type of the resource as a literal.   The range of terms:format is a
class, terms:MediaTypeOrExtent, meaning that the object of a triple with
the predicate terms:format should be an instance of that class, and thus
not a literal.  Similarly dc:language, and dcterms:LinguisticSystem.

We use dcterms:conformsTo with oa:FragmentSelector to convey the
specification for the fragment in rdf:value.

And those are the only uses of elements or terms directly in the model.

So, if terms:format "text/html" and terms:language "en" are (somehow,
please explain?) possible, then I would be happy to stop using elements,
and use dc for terms.  On the other hand, as we currently make much greater
use of elements than terms, I'm not in favor of the change as the model
stands.  It's "just a prefix" but it's a commonly used and understood one.

Rob



On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:24:54AM -0500, Paolo Ciccarese wrote:
> > He pointed out that while we are absolutely free to pick our own prefix
> > definitions, we could consider of aligning them with the prefixes of the
> > RDFa core context: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1
> >
> > In particular, that would mean to map
> > dc = http://purl.org/dc/terms/
> > dc11 = http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
> >
> > It seems, the DC folks recommended those prefixes to the RDFa WG because
> > they want to slowly deprecate the old 1.1 elements.
> >
> > It is probably not crucial but, in general, I think it is probably a good
> > idea to align our context with existing ones in the same ecosystem.
>
> +1 to align with RDFa core context
>
> As I recall it, the mapping of dc: to /terms/ came about because this is
> what the RDFa community preferred at the time, and DCMI had no objection.
> After all, they are "just prefixes"... ;-)
>
> This has, alas, created some confusion for those who had mapped dc: to
> /elements/1.1/, though the existence of range-less and ranged properties in
> parallel has been a problem since ranges were introduced in January 2008.
>
> DCMI "gently promotes" the ranged properties of /terms/ while avoiding the
> word
> "deprecate" because part of the community feels that the range-less
> properties
> may in some cases be preferable.
>
> Tom
>
> --
> Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
>
>