Re: Dublin Core citation in RDFa 1.1 Primer - also "unconstrained" properties

On Oct 29, 2011, at 01:19 , Thomas Baker wrote:

> The RDFa 1.1 Primer, W3C Editor's Draft 21 October 2011 [1], cites ("[DC11]"):
> 
>    Dublin Core metadata initiative. Dublin Core metadata element set, version
>    1.1. July 1999. Dublin Core recommendation. URL:
>    http://purl.oclc.org/docs/core/documents/rec-dces-19990702.htm 
> 
> This is a very old URL -- so old, that it no longer resolves.  The best URLs
> to use for Dublin Core are:
> 
>    http://dublincore.org/documents/2010/10/11/dcmi-terms/ - or 
>    http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/ ("latest version")


Thanks Tom. I have changed it in the source:

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-primer/Overview-src.html

and this will automatically transfer to the final version when it will be generated for publication.


> 
> The specification above documents both the /terms/ namespace for the DC-15 -- with 
> their assigned ranges -- and the /elements/1.1/ namespace, which is "unconstrained"
> with formal ranges.  The references to Dublin Core in [1] are actually a bit
> ambiguous, because the examples show purl.org/dc/terms/, but the reference seems
> to intend "version 1.1".
> 
> Aside from correcting the citation, I'd like to take the opportunity to ask
> again, in light of the changing environment, your current opinions on whether
> DCMI should still be "gently promoting" the /terms/ terms, with their formal
> ranges and, by implication, gently discouraging the use of unconstrained
> /elements/1.1/ terms.
> 
> I ask, because we have gotten some feedback from major implementers who find
> the "rangeless" properties to be convenient, and we have heard some criticism
> about the designation of /elements/1.1/ properties as "legacy" [2].
> 
> I see this as a significant question for the Semantic Web community that goes
> well beyond DCMI Metadata Terms.  The question is: Given our current
> understanding of implementation of RDF vocabularies, and consumption of RDF
> data, should we promote properties with domains and ranges, or properties
> without?  Does the answer depend on content of use?  Previous discussions on
> this list concluded that the RDFa documentation should consistently use /terms/
> properties, but is this still the opinion of this group?
> 

Thomas, in general I would prefer to send this question to, eg, the SW Coordination Group or the RDF Group. Or maybe, and that might be the best solution, the SWIG mailing list. The RDFa work is only on syntax, which is oblivious to these types of questions, and I think it would be better to discuss that with the larger community.

As far as this group is concerned, there are two issues of relevance here, which are much more restricted to the DCMI issues:

- Which version to refer to in our examples. Beyond the issue that this should be consistent, we simply follow what DCMI feels more comfortable with. Hence our usage of /terms/ as we discussed earlier. As those examples are not normative, I would think that it does not make such a big difference for now and we can simply stay with that.
- (This is more important) the default context for RDFa defines a fixed and default prefix for DC. At present, we define the 'dc' prefix for http://purl.org/dc/terms/ (I think in agreement with you). If, at the end of that discussion, DCMI feels that this has to change, we are happy to do it.
 

Cheers!

Ivan

> Beyond a correction of the citation, I would be very interested in your 
> opinions on this point...
> 
> Many thanks,
> Tom
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-primer/
> [2] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#H3
> 
> -- 
> Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf