- From: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:05:18 +0100
- To: SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Ben, Mark, Michael, In Section 3.2, the Primer [1] says: In the above markup and triples, as well as in the rest of the document, we slightly abuse the dc:creator predicate, which is most often meant to refer to a person, not just a literal. Currently, dc:creator has no formal range, but DCMI is considering a proposal to replicate the fifteen properties of the http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ namespace into the http://purl.org/dc/terms/ namespace and assign ranges to these properties. This proposal has been out for Public Comment, which closes on March 5 (details below). Assigning a range to dcterms:creator (proposed range: Agent) would in no way break the examples in the Primer, which use dc:creator (range undefined). However, DCMI would encourage new implementations of DC metadata to make use of the new dcterms: properties rather than the older dc: properties. Furthermore, as already discussed in the Public Comment period, the proposal to assign ranges raises more general issues about the expected ranges of properties such as dc:date and dc:creator [2,3]. It would be extremely if this group could provide input to DCMI on this issue - both in general and from the standpoint of RDFa (for example, on the assumptions or preferences reflected in the quote above). Note that a number of other related specifications (especially [4], Expressing Dublin Core metadata using RDF) are in the pipeline and depend for their finalization on the outcome of Public Comment on the Abstract Model. Tom [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/ [2] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0702&L=dc-architecture&P=4038 [3] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0702&L=dc-architecture&P=10112 [4] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-rdf/ ---- I would like to draw the attention of this group to a Public Comment period, through 5 March, on a revised version of the DCMI Abstract Model [1] and a proposed vocabulary of domains and ranges for DCMI metadata terms [2]. In particular Section 5, which specifies the relationship of the DCMI Abstract Model to RDF [6], may be of interest. Further context about this comment period is provided in postings to the DC-ARCHITECTURE working group [3,4, see also below], where any comments should be posted and discussion is now taking place [5]. Tom Baker [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/02/05/abstract-model/ [2] http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/02/05/domain-range/ [3] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0702&L=dc-architecture&P=171 [4] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0702&L=dc-architecture&P=291 [5] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/dc-architecture.html [6] http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/02/05/abstract-model/#sect-5 > Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:32:28 +0100 > From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de> > To: DCMI Architecture <dc-architecture@jiscmail.ac.uk> > Subject: Public comment for revision of DCMI Abstract Model > > The DCMI Abstract Model, which attained the status of DCMI > Recommendation in March 2005, has been revised in light of > discussion and feedback from the DCMI Architecture Working > Group, the DCMI Usage Board, and the broader community. > > This revised version of the Abstract Model [1] has been > posted for a four-week public comment period. The major > differences between this revised version and the 2005 version > [2] are summarized below. A revised DCMI Namespace Policy > [3] proposing a new DCMI namespace for Abstract Model entities > has been posted for comment at the same time. > > Interested members of the public are invited to post comments > on these Proposed Recommendations to the DC-ARCHITECTURE > mailing list [4], including "[DCAM Public Comment]" in the > subject line. Public Comment will be open from 5 February > through 5 March 2007. > > [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/02/05/abstract-model/ > [2] http://dublincore.org/documents/2005/03/07/abstract-model/ > [3] http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/02/05/dcmi-namespace/ > [4] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/dc-architecture.html > > > > > Changes in the DCMI Abstract Model, 2005 to 2007 > > -- Added a table explicitly mapping Abstract Model entities to > properties and classes of the Resource Description Framework > (RDF) and RDF Schema (RDFS). The DCMI Abstract Model defines > a particular Description Model on the basis of RDFS semantics. > > -- Added a separate Vocabulary Model specifying the types > of "terms" used in Dublin Core metadata descriptions and > including support for formal domains and ranges for properties. > The declaration of a vocabulary of classes and their use > as domains and ranges for DCMI properties is the focus of a > separate Public Comment period. > > -- Changed the definition of 'vocabulary encoding scheme' -- > defined in 2005 as "a class that indicates that the value of a > property is taken from a controlled vocabulary" -- to mean "an > enumerated set of resources" of which the value is a member. > (A value can be described as an instance of a class by other > means, such as by a separate statement to this effect). > > -- Updated the definition of 'rich representation', adding > the notion of 'media type'. > > Other editorial changes > > -- Tightened the definition of 'syntax encoding scheme', > explicitly mapping the concept to the RDF Schema class > 'Datatype'. > > -- Tightened terminology and wordings to clarify meaning > (e.g., by consistently using phrases instead of sentences for > definitions; by referring to 'described resource' instead of > just 'resource'; by using the phrase "separate 'description' > about the 'value'" instead of a modeling entity for 'separate > description'). > > -- Shortened the document by removing sections describing > related issues such as 'dumb-down' (formerly Section 5), > 'structured values' (formerly Appendix A), and specific > encoding guidelines (formerly Appendixes B, C, and D). > Much of this material will be provided in revised form in > more user-oriented documentation. > > -- Added a table mapping current Abstract Model terminology > to the terminology in legacy DCMI "grammatical principles" > documentation (now Appendix A). > > -- Permitted a value string to be associated with either > a language tag or syntax encoding scheme, or neither, but > not both. > > -- Added a note to the effect that classes can be declared > explicitly or inferred from the domains and ranges of > properties. Dropped the guideline that in DCMI metadata > descriptions, the class of the resource being described should > be indicated by the value of the Dublin Core Type property. > > -- Simplified the Description Model, removing 'marked-up > text' and 'structured value string' as separate entities and > rearranging the diagram to improve readability. > > -- Added placeholder URIs identifying DCMI Abstract Model > entities in a new DCMI namespace (as described in the > revised DCMI Namespace Policy, also posted for Public > Comment). > > -- Replaced QNames throughout the document with full URIs. > > > > -- > Dr. Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de> > Director, Specifications and Documentation > Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
Received on Monday, 26 February 2007 13:02:25 UTC