James M Snell wrote: > Bill de hÓra wrote: > >> The link approach doesn't seem to be less ambiguous than dc:subject. For >> lessened ambiguity you might want to use published subject indicators a >> la topic maps. >> >> >> > It is "less ambiguous" in that a URI is less ambiguous that some > arbitrary text string. Further, the link approach is perfectly > compatible with the "published subject indicators a la topic maps" > approach.
There's no requirement to use an "arbitrary text string" in dc:subject*. And even then, I have no idea how a URL (you did say these things had to be dereferenced) is less ambiguous than a string - they're equally arbitrary unless we're talking about their use in something like OWL. The link approach still doesn't seem to be less ambiguous than dc:subject, ie it does not seem to be a basis for choosing one over the other. cheers Bill * The dc:subject value is recommended to be taken from some controlled set. The @rel=subject idea doesn't say anything about the link being a PSI. The "link approach" is "perfectly compatable" then with PSIs insofar as you would have some other interpretation that lookups the URIs and sees if they're actually PSIs, or not.
