The four DCMI namespaces are:
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ The /elements/1.1/ namespace was created in 2000 for the RDF representation of the fifteen-element Dublin Core and has been widely used in data for more than twenty years. This namespace corresponds to the original scope of ISO 15836, which was published first in 2003 and last revised in 2017 as [ISO 15836-1:2017](https://www.iso.org/standard/71339.html) [ISO 15836-1:2017.
http://purl.org/dc/terms/ The /terms/ namespace was originally created in 2001 for identifying new terms coined outside of the original fifteen-element Dublin Core. In 2008, in the context of defining formal semantic constraints for DCMI metadata terms in support of RDF applications, the original fifteen elements themselves were mirrored in the /terms/ namespace. As a result, there exists both a dc:date (http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/date) with no formal range and a corresponding dcterms:date (http://purl.org/dc/terms/date) with a formal range of "literal". While these distinctions are significant for creators of RDF applications, most users can safely treat the fifteen parallel properties as equivalent. The most useful properties and classes of DCMI Metadata Terms have now been published as [ISO 15836-2:2019](https://www.iso.org/standard/71341.html) [ISO 15836-2:2019]. While the /elements/1.1/ namespace will be supported indefinitely, DCMI gently encourages use of the /terms/ namespace.
http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/ The /dcmitype/ namespace was created in 2001 for the DCMI Type Vocabulary, which defines classes for basic types of thing that can be described using DCMI metadata terms.
http://purl.org/dc/dcam/ The /dcam/ namespace was created in 2008 for terms used in the description of DCMI metadata terms.
We should update our example in the code at the very least.
Preferably, we can handle HTTP 301 as a feature request.
The http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ is now redirecting here: https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/#
Which within that page describes the following:
We should update our example in the code at the very least.
Preferably, we can handle HTTP 301 as a feature request.
see: https://www.iso.org/news/ref2474.html
Attempting to use:
https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/#. Results in: