Definition of dct:relation

[tombaker]

See definition_relation.md - see also Issue #27 ('Properties "intended to be used with non-literal values")

DCMI Metadata Terms defines both http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/relation and http://purl.org/dc/terms/relation with the following definition and comment:

A related resource.

Recommended best practice is to identify the related resource by means of a
string conforming to a formal identification system.

In addition, DCMI Metadata Terms notes, for dct:relation - see Issue #27 :

This term is intended to be used with non-literal values as defined in the
DCMI Abstract Model.  As of December 2007, the DCMI Usage Board is seeking
a way to express this intention with a formal range declaration.

The ISO WG proposes:

A reference to a related resource.

Best practice is to identify the related resource by means of an URI or a
string conforming to a formal identification system.

Note:

• In ISO 15836-2, the notes would be "NOTE x to entry:".
• Definition was originally proposed by ISO WG without initial uppercase and full stop.

[tombaker]

Closing.

[tombaker]

Reopening

[tombaker]

28a. Definition of dct:relation

DCMI Metadata Terms defines both http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/relation and http://purl.org/dc/terms/relation with the following definition:

A related resource.

The current ISO draft proposes a different definition:

A reference to a related resource.

Note that if we were to define things as being "references to", we'd need to consider re-defining, say, dct:subject as "A reference to the topic of the resource" (instead of "The topic of the resource").

Do we agree with this change?

@kcoyle Apologies - I edited this before noticing your upvote, which I believe refers to the change proposed in the comment below.

[tombaker]

28b. Comment for dct:relation

The comment for dct:relation in DCMIMT currently says:

Recommended best practice is to identify the related resource by means of a
string conforming to a formal identification system.

The current ISO draft proposes a different definition (lightly edited here):

Recommended practice is to identify the related resource by means of a URI or a
string conforming to a formal identification system.

[tombaker]

28c. Definition of dct:conformsTo

It has been pointed out to me that the ISO draft also defines conformsTo as:

reference to an established standard to which the described resource conforms

whereas in DCMI Metadata Terms, it is defined without "reference to".

An established standard to which the described resource conforms.

This is exactly analogous to the change proposed for dct:relation. I propose that we reject the change.

Here: thumbs-down means "do not change the definition - keep it as is".

[sarahartmann]

+1, but proposal to adapt the wording to note 2 of #30

[tombaker]

APPROVED for 28b

Recommended practice is to identify the related resource by means of a URI. 
If this is not possible or feasible, a string conforming to a formal identification 
system may be provided.

[tombaker]

See https://github.com/dcmi/usage/blob/master/minutes/2018/2018-08-28.dcub-telecon-minutes.md for votes