Thanks Andy, that's very helpful. I had looked at the Abstract Model but the "i.e. an rdfs:Resource" interpretation wasn't obvious to me from that which is why I turned to the FAQ.
Dave On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 10:16 +0100, Andy Powell wrote: > Well... the DCMI Abstract Model [1] says that a 'described resource' is a > 'resource' (i.e. an rdfs:Resource): > > resource (http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource) > Anything that might be identified. Familiar examples include an electronic > document, an image, a service (for example, "today's weather report for Los > Angeles"), and a collection of other resources. Not all resources are network > "retrievable"; for example, human beings, corporations, concepts and bound > books in a library can also be considered resources. > > so in the context of current DCMI thinking your interpretation is too narrow. > (I haven't looked at the FAQ but I'm not sure how well maintained it is, nor > whether it has been updated in line with the language used in the Abstract > Model). > > Historically, DCMI used to talk about document-like objects (DLOs) as being > the kind of things that DC metadata was optimised to describe. Some of this > legacy remains in, say, the definition of dcterms:format (which is pretty > horrible in any case) [2] and the DC Type vocabulary [3] and in more general > attitudes and practice. > > To make matters worse, I think there are probably a wide range of views about > what DC metadata can reasonably be used to describe within the DCMI community > - and indeed on the value of things like Linked Data :-). I tried to touch on > some of this in my recent talk at the ISKO Linked Data - the future of > knowledge organisation on the Web conference a few weeks ago [4]. One of > DCMI's problems is that its longevity means that there are a wide range of > attitudes and practices to accommodate. > > Overall though, I suggest that there is a general trend towards the > acceptance of using an appropriate mix of DC terms to describe any kind of > resource. If nothing else, DC terms are used to describe DC terms, which are > themselves conceptual :-). > > (Note that I was one of the authors of the Abstract Model and therefore tend > to use it as my reference point rather more heavily than others do. For info, > there is a current conversation within DCMI about the continuing need for a > separate DCMI Abstract Model, as opposed to simply using the RDF model.) > > [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/06/04/abstract-model/ > [2] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-format > [3] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#H7 > [4] http://www.slideshare.net/andypowe11/linked-data-the-long-and-winding-road > > Andy > > -- > Andy Powell > Research Programme Director > Eduserv > t: 01225 474319 > m: 07989 476710 > twitter: @andypowe11 > blog: efoundations.typepad.com > > www.eduserv.org.uk > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-lod-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-lod-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf > Of Dave Reynolds > Sent: 11 October 2010 22:54 > To: Linking Open Data > Subject: Domain of Dublin Core terms > > This is a back to basics kind of question ... > > What sorts of entities are we happy to describe using Dublin Core Terms? > > The Dublin Core Abstract Model [1] talks about "described resources" > which are described in the FAQ [2] as "anything addressable via a > URL ... including various collections of documents and non-electronic > forms of media such as a museum or library archive". I've always taken > this to mean that such resources are Information Resources in the sense > of http-range-14, not abstract concepts. > > So I've been happy using, say, dct:spatial to talk about the area > covered by some report or some data set (c.f. its use in dcat [3]) but > not happy to use it for, say, the area affected by some public project > or administered by a local council. > > Various discussions have led me to question whether I'm being too > restrictive here and whether the LOD general practice has evolved to use > dcterms more broadly than that. > > The published schema for dcterms has no rdfs:domain declarations for the > bulk of the properties and no class representing describable resources. > So from a pure inference point of view using properties such as > dct:spatial on an abstract thing like a project does no harm. > > The question is whether the informal semantics or best practice > expectations suggest avoiding this. > > Dave > > [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/06/04/abstract-model/ > [2] http://dublincore.org/resources/faq/#whatisaresource > [3] > http://www.w3.org/egov/wiki/Data_Catalog_Vocabulary/Vocabulary_Reference#Property:_spatial.2Fgeographic_coverage > > > > >
