Add usage comment on dwciri: terms, "to be used with non-literal objects"

[dagendresen]

Change term(s)

• Term identifier: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/iri/
• Submitter: Dag Endresen, see also: Measurement or fact extension with dwciri terms gbif/rs.gbif.org#13 @peterdesmet
• Justification:

When dwc: terms and dwciri: terms (soon) will be listed together from "http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/" the normal user might perhaps be confused to find the normative description (rdfs:comment) and usage comment (dcterms:description) for the two terms in each respective namespace to be identical (will they be identical?). Perhaps it is useful to add in the usage comments (dcterms:description) a sentence for all dwciri terms, such as e.g.:

"Terms in the dwciri namespace are intended to be used with non-literal objects"

I notice that Dublin Core has included a similar usage comment for the Dublin Core terms in the dc/terms namespace (compared to the dc/element namespace). See e.g. dc:relation and dcterms:relation.

This term is intended to be used with non-literal values as defined in the DCMI Abstract Model (http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/). As of December 2007, the DCMI Usage Board is seeking a way to express this intention with a formal range declaration".

I also notice that Steve @baskaufs commented in #102 that it has not yet been discussed how or if a dwciri term should be used outside of the RDF context. However, a guiding usage comment such as this might anyway be useful?

[baskaufs]

I think that most of the rdfs:comment values for the dwciri: terms are the same, but I think that I went through the rdfs:comment values before they went into the "normative document" and made the necessary modifications for a few of the the dwciri: terms so that they would make sense with the RDF guide (for example, getting rid of instructions such as separating multiple values with pipes, since there shouldn't be multiple values).

I think it would be good to put a comment similar to what you recommended into the usage comments (dcterms:description) values. I think that in the context of RDF, the comment should make sense to users. Outside of that context, people might not understand it, which might be OK because if they don't understand it, they probably shouldn't be using it.

[tucotuco]

Done in commit 57d0a2b.