[oslc-AssetMgmt] Usage of dcterms:type in latest spec

[Sheehan Anderson]

We went back and forth on this many times.  In the end we decided to continue to use dcterms:type.  The two primary reasons for choosing dcterms:type over rdf:type were
1.  The other OSLC 2.0 specifications used dcterms:type and we wanted our specification to follow a similar format.
2.  There were issues with Jena generating abbreviated XML when two rdf:type properties were present and we did not want to increase complexity for providers implementing the specification.

Regards,
Sheehan

-----oslc-assetmgmt-bounces at open-services.net wrote: -----
To: oslc-assetmgmt at open-services.net
From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
Sent by: oslc-assetmgmt-bounces at open-services.net
Date: 06/20/2012 12:56PM
Subject: [oslc-AssetMgmt] Usage of dcterms:type in latest spec

In reviewing the latest Asset Mgmt 2.0 spec [1], I was surprised to see 
dcterms:type still listed.  I see based on Issue #4 and #14 [2] it appears 
that rdf:type should be used as instead of dcterms:type as recommended by 
[3].

[1] - http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/AssetMgSpecificationV2#Asset
[2] - http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/AssetMgSpecificationV2Issues
[3] - http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-rdf/

Thanks,
Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645


_______________________________________________
Oslc-AssetMgmt mailing list
Oslc-AssetMgmt at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-assetmgmt_open-services.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-assetmgmt_open-services.net/attachments/20120620/354bfe0b/attachment-0003.html>