- From: Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:02:05 -0400
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org, Stuart Sutton <sasutton@dublincore.net>, Corey Harper <corey.harper@nyu.edu>
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:32:28PM +0200, Ivan Herman 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. Thank you, Ivan. > > 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. Understood. > 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. That seems reasonable. > - (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). Yes - I believe that discussion is on record in this list. > If, at the end of > that discussion, DCMI feels that this has to change, we are happy to do it. Generally speaking, DCMI simply wants to "do the right thing", and our gentle advocacy of /terms/ was motivated by our perception that the Semantic Web community -- i.e., users of DCMI Metadata Terms as _RDF_ properties and not just for their natural-language definitions -- strongly preferred properties constrained with ranges ("string vs thing"). As a reality check, I'd like to ping the community again either to confirm that this is still how the community sees it -- or to re-assess the utility of "free-range" properties (as Corey Harper likes to call them). I'll prepare a post for discussion on the lists. Many thanks, Tom -- Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Received on Saturday, 29 October 2011 15:02:41 UTC