
|
Title:
|
Data Model Working Draft |
|
Creator:
|
Misha Wolf
|
|
Date Issued:
|
1998-10-07
|
|
Identifier:
|
|
|
Replaces:
|
|
|
Is Replaced By:
|
Not applicable
|
|
Latest Version:
|
|
|
Status of Document:
|
This is a DCMI Working
Draft
|
| Description of Document: | An overview of the DC-RDF data model. |
|
|
|
1. General
1.1
The DC community will "borrow or steal" from other communities
where reasonable. This applies in particular to terminology,
schemas, vocabularies etc.
2. Data Model
2.1
The RDF data model is the foundation for the DC data
model.
2.2
We shall use the term "structural node" to denote a resource
in an RDF graph that does not have an independent existence in
the real world.
3. DC elements
3.1
In RDF, we use only DC element names as the names of
properties of nodes which represent actual resources. In other
words, at the outermost level, we do not use any property names
other than the fifteen DC element names.
3.2
In RDF, we do not use the fifteen DC element names except as
the names of properties that apply to actual resources. In
other words, at inner levels, we do not use the fifteen DC
element names to name properties.
3.3
The value of each of the following properties may be a string
or a URI. The URI may be either the URI of an RDF node or a URI
which should be resolved in order to obtain a value.
3.4
The semantic purpose of a dc:Identifier is satisfied by the
Resource's own URI. If an explicit dc:Identifier is used, its
value may be a string or a URI. The URI may be either the URI
of an RDF node or a URI which should be resolved in order to
obtain a value.
4. Agents
4.1
Re the Contributor/Creator/Publisher question, we advise
that:
4.2
We recommend that agents be described in any of the following
ways:
4.3
We refer the "Personal vs Corporate" issue to the Sub-elements
WG and ask them for information on whether/where support for
this distinction is required when not handled by external name
authorities.
5. Namespaces
5.1
We shall have two DC namespaces: one for the 15 elements and
one for qualification. In documentation we shall use the
abbreviations "DC" and "DCQ".
5.2A
"simple" DC agent MUST understand the "simple" Dublin Core
namespace (often abbreviated as "dc") and the RDF M&S
namespace (here shown as "rdf"). Understanding the "rdf"
namespace includes understanding how to extract unqualified DC
values from qualified DC constructs by following the chain of
"rdf:value"s.
5.3
For the 15 DC elements defined in RFC 2413, the namespace we
shall use is:
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.0/
We note that the portion:
purl.org/dc
may change in the future.
The corresponding recommended abbreviation is "dc".
5.4
For the DC qualifiers (eg RelationType) the namespace we shall
use is:
http://purl.org/dc/qualifiers/1.0/
The corresponding recommended abbreviation is "dcq".
5.5
Some of the terms (eg IsBasedOn) to be used with DC qualifiers
(eg RelationType) will be defined by the DC community. These
will be grouped into logically related sets of terms (eg the
set of Relation Types). We shall define a namespace for each
such logically related set of terms (eg for the set of Relation
Types).
6. Qualifiers
6.1
Two categories of qualifier are widely useful, which we called
A and B. Types and Roles are examples of category A and Schemes
of category B. The semantics of category A qualifiers are to
refine the meaning of the relationship between the resource and
the value, whereas category B qualifiers make statements about
the value itself. We express qualifiers in both categories
using a property of a synthetic node. A single such synthetic
node can have both a category A qualifier and a category B
qualifier. The template for the use of these categories looks
like this:
Unqualified:
[R1]---dc:Foo---------------------->the-value
Qualified:
[R1]---dc:Foo---------------------->[SN1]
[SN1]--rdf:Value------------------->the-value
[SN1]--dcq:a-category-A-qualifier-->...
[SN1]--dcq:a-category-B-qualifier-->...
As well as being used to qualify DC elements, this template can be used to qualify other relationships.
6.2
We shall not include dots (or any other punctuation) in the
namesof Types etc.
6.3
The DC specifications will define lists of values for some of
the DCQ qualifiers (such as dcq:TitleType) though not for all
such qualifiers. For some of the qualifiers for which we will
define lists of values, it will be open to other communities to
define additional values. For those qualifiers for which we do
not define lists of values, all possible values will be defined
by other communities.
6.4
Referring to the point above, the values defined in the DC
specifications will be URIs (eg
http:/purl.org/.../dublin.../...Alternative). We are not
imposing such a restriction on values defined by others. That
is, in general, the value of a dcq:XxxxType and dcq:Scheme etc
may be a string or a URI.
6.5
The value of an rdf:Value can be qualified by dcq:Scheme.
6.6
We define the following Types:
Other Types may be added later.
7. Repetition
7.1
Multiple instances of a DC PropertyType may be expressed using
simple repetition or any one of the three RDF M&S
collection constructs (Bag, Seq and Alt). The DC DM WG seeks
feedback on this decision from DC implementors.
7.2
Where multiple instances of a DC PropertyType are to be
ordered, the appropriate RDF M&S collection construct (Seq
or Alt) should be used.
7.3
The above decisions apply also to Type A and Type B qualifiers
(though we cannot see good uses for Alt in this case). The DC
DM WG seeks feedback on this decision from DC implementors.
7.4
For the repetition and ordering of values we recommend the use
of a single rdf:value arc pointing to the appropriate one of
the three RDF collection constructs (Alt, Seq, Bag). In some
cases it may be appropriate, instead, to repeat the entire DC
element, with the additional value. Where values are provided
in multiple languages and there is no default language, we
recommend use of a Bag; if there is a default language, we
recommend use of an Alt. The DC DM WG seeks feedback on this
decision from DC implementors, particularly those working on
multilingual DC.
8. Multilingual strings
8.1
The DC community requires the ability to handle multilingual
strings, associating each sub-string with its language.
Language qualification of an entire string is just a degenerate
case of this requirement. Hence, the functionality of the
Canberra language qualifier (which applied to entire strings)
is satisfied by XML's xml:lang attribute.
8.2
The DC DM WG asks the XML, I18N and HTML WGs of the W3C to
provide a general mechanism for multilingual strings in XML
documents.
8.3
The DC DM WG asks the W3C RDF M&S WG to support the above
mechanism once it has been specified.
Copyright © 1995-2008 DCMI. All Rights Reserved.