Expressing Dublin Core™ metadata using the Resource Description Framework (RDF)
Title: Report from public comment period on Expressing Dublin Core™ metadata using the Resource Description Framework (RDF) Creator: Mikael Nilsson Identifier: http://dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/2007/04/02/dc-rdf/comments-received.html Date: 2007-06-04 The following comments and issues were raised during Public Comment for the April 2007 version of "Expressing Dublin Core™ metadata using the Resource Description Framework (RDF)" [1]. The summary below refers to comments by Douglas Campbell [2] and Ivan Herman [3]. [1] http://dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/2007/04/02/dc-rdf/ [2] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0705&L=dc-architecture&P=170 [3] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0704&L=dc-architecture&P=1308 Use of dcterms: namespace As of June 2007, a proposal [1] to replicate the fifteen properties of the http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ ("dc:") namespace in the http://purl.org/dc/terms/ ("dcterms:") namespace has not yet been approved or implemented. Proposal: To leave references to dcterms:subject and dcterms:title as is for now pending approval of the replication proposal. Status of DC-RDF will remain that of DCMI Proposed Recommendation. [1] http://dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/2007/02/05/domain-range/ Value-VES relationship as instance-Of v memberOf Could the relationship between value and VES be expressed as instanceOf (rdf:type) (with VES as Class) rather than dcam:memberOf? The current recommendation takes this approach but that has been changed: * to avoid confusion with "traditional" DCMI concept of VES * the instance-of relationship between value and VES created problems for integration with SKOS, where the relationship between a concept and a concept scheme is skos:inScheme, not instance-of Proposal: No change required. RDF summary It was suggested that the RDF summary would go into an appendix Proposal: As the RDF terminology and graph notation is used later in the document, the section should probably be kept. Include DC-TEXT in all examples It was suggested that DC-TEXT should be used in all examples Proposal: Should be done. Wording of Section 5 It was suggested that the language on describing "value" at the end of section 5 could be improved Proposal: Improve language. Wording section 5 It was suggested that the "Value classes" bullet list be improved with concrete examples. Proposal: Should be done. Use of dcterms:type It was pointed out that examples use dcterms:type but text says to use rdf:type. Proposal: Examples are correct. References to dcterms:type in DC-TEXT converted to rdf:type in RDF. Examples description improvement It was suggested that plain language describing the content of the metadata examples be added. Proposal: Should be done. Example of multiple languages Add multiple language strings in multiple languages to one of the examples. Proposal: Should be done. rdfs:label preferred over rdf:value There is an issue with finding the right label for display purposes. Proposal: rdfs:label is not an option, as the semantics does not match the definition of value string. dcterms:type vs rdf:type There is an issue with declaring a sub-property of rdf:type. OWL-DL will not accept the assertion that dcterms:type is rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:type. Proposal: This is really an issue for the DCMI Usage Board. -- Remove statement that dcterms:type is rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:type. -- State that in mapping from DCAM to RDF, dcterms:type maps to rdf:type. Usage of rdf:ID vs rdf:nodeId Last example not clear about the mapping of DC-TEXT IDs Proposal: Make clear that no URI is created in the mapping of blank nodes.