- From: Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:38:39 -0500
- To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Cc: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>, St?phane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:42:59AM -0700, Robert Sanderson wrote: > 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. ... > ... we have many occurrences of dc11:format, some > of dc11:language, and a few of dc:conformsTo. I should clarify that I'm > not against it either, I'm just not in favour of a "face trade" that > introduces potential confusion downstream for adopters and implementers > unless there is some gain to outweigh that. ... > If we're going to change the way in which these predicates are *perceived*, > and it's possible to avoid a not-quite-deprecated ontology, then I think we > should fix it all the way through. Thus my query about using terms:format > and terms:language. If I understand the situation, the correct properties would be: http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/format http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/language http://purl.org/dc/terms/conformsTo because http://purl.org/dc/terms/format http://purl.org/dc/terms/language are not supposed to be used with literal objects. In practice, I'm sure that in the wild, they are used ("incorrectly") with literal objects, but that is another matter. I do not think of /elements/1.1/ as "not-quite-deprecated" because it remains quite popular, perhaps indeed because it is looser. I cite them here with full URIs to avoid any confusion with the prefix issue and note that the "element" (or /elements/) and "term" (/terms/) variants above are all properties. The only explanation I can offer for this confusing state of affairs is historical: Dublin Core began in 1995 as "elements" two years before work began on RDF at W3C, and the best catch-all label we could think of in 1999 for a namespace of properties, classes, and (at the time) "encoding schemes" was "terms". Tom -- Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2014 22:39:15 UTC