What is the relation between dcterms:identifier and bibo:identifier?

[ljgarcia]

Hi all,

I have seen that some of the properties in bibo are mapped to/inheriting from dcterms. However, it does not happen with bibo:identifier. What would be the reason?
Would it be possible/sensible to make bibo:identifier a sup-property of dcterms:identifier?

Regards,

lj

[Trevor Thornton]

I think that this makes sense.

It seems to me that dcterms should be used as a domain-agnostic model that can be extended to suit the needs of more specific domains (bibliographic, archival, etc.) through subPropertyOf, subClassOf, etc. In this way, the dcterms classes and properties could provide a common vocabulary when resources from these domains need to be aggregated. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bibliographic Ontology Specification Group" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bibliographic-ontology-specification-group/-/TKSIS-zrmRMJ.
To post to this group, send email to bibliographic-ontolog...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bibliographic-ontology-spec...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bibliographic-ontology-specification-group?hl=en.

--
Trevor Thornton
Senior Applications Developer, NYPL Labs
The New York Public Library
phone: 212-621-0287
email: trevort...@nypl.org

[Niklas Lindström]

Yes, I agree. This pattern is very good for richer vocabularies to
adhere to. By extending basic, commonly known core terms (where
applicable), OWL processors, or simpler tools using basic vocabulary
expansion (as defined by RDFa 1.1 [1]) can extract a core of
information for use in scenarios where the richer vocabulary isn't
known/handled.

Best regards,
Niklas

[1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/#vocabulary-expansion