- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 21:57:32 +0200
- To: Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
- Cc: public-rdfa <public-rdfa@w3.org>
The history shouldn't be lost, though I can't imagine any value in the foreseeable future. Just pack it in the attic and at most give the cardboard box an rdfs:seeAlso, I would say. Cheers, Danny. On 11 May 2012 21:40, Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org> wrote: > Dear all, > > A bit of an aside... > > I'd be interested to hear any views on whether it makes sense to try to express > the "historical record" of DCMI Metadata Terms [1] -- term-by-term snapshots of > information about properties and classes as Comments or Definitions were > tweaked, domains or ranges were added, URLs to external documents were updated, > etc -- in RDF(a). > > For example, the "Bibliographic Citation" was issued on 2003-02-15 as an > "element refinement" [1]. On 2008-01-14, it was modified with a tightened > usage comment, a formal domain of dcterms:BibliographicResource and range of > rdfs:Literal, and explicitly declared to be of type "property". (The RDF schema > had been saying that for years, but the user-facing documentation had until > then used legacy terminology for "term types", such as "element refinement".) > > I made up this snapshot system for individual term descriptions about ten years > ago on the model used to version DCMI documents, which was itself modeled on > the W3C method of versioning documents. I have often wondered whether this > method is the right one (or at least "good enough"), and how one might express > this information in RDF (and for what purposes). > > I do think it would be counterproductive to generate this document with RDFa > for each separate historical version of a term. Simply expressing all of this > historical information in RDF statements the status of which would depend on > the meaning of "replaces" does not seem useful. Hence my recommendation that > we simply exclude this document from the process of embedding RDFa and continue > to serve it up as an ordinary, flat Web page, as now. > > I would, however, be interested to hear ideas on how the historical data might > eventually be put into a more useful form. > > Tom > > [1] http://dublincore.org/usage/terms/history/ > [2] http://dublincore.org/usage/terms/history/#bibliographicCitation-001 > [3] http://dublincore.org/usage/terms/history/#bibliographicCitation-002 > > -- > Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org> > -- http://dannyayers.com http://webbeep.it - text to tones and back again
Received on Friday, 11 May 2012 19:58:01 UTC