Dan Brickley wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Roland Schwaenzl wrote:
>
> > In Math-Net we use rdf:Bag in the dc:creator field for collaborative efforts.
> > rdf:Alt is used in dc:identifier.
> >
> > Both uses fit with the usage described in RDF M&S. We currently don't use rdf:Seq.
>
> M&S does encourage this, yes. However I have doubts about this as a
> modelling style that will scale:
>
> Does dc:creator ( doc1, bag1)
> rdf:_1 ( bag1, dan )
> rdf:_2 ( bag1, eric )
>
> ...imply
> dc:creator ( doc1, dan)
> and
> dc:creator ( doc1, eric) ?
No. The two examples have different meaning.
the first says: the creator of doc1 is a bag. the bag
consists of the two elements dan and eric.
the second one says: dan is the creator
of doc1 AND eric is the creator of doc1.
these two statements are independent.
(e.g. the 'wheel' example of the proposal)
the first one does not imply the second.
> Not in the general case: RDF doesn't allow us to make this inference. Same
> for Seqs and Alts. However in Dublin Core, we want to be clear that we
> believe both dan and eric to be a creator of the document. The thing of
> rdf:type rdf:Bag didn't do the creating, after all.
Why not? For example, this is exactly the meaning that
we need for describing mathematical articles: they are
mostly written by a bag of authors:
dc:creator ( doc, bag1)
rdf:_1 ( bag1, A )
rdf:_2 ( bag1, B )
This does not mean that A is the creator of
doc1. It just means that A is part of the
Bag that is the creator of doc1.
there is a different strategy in physics: the
creator mostly is a seq of authors
dc:creator ( doc, Seq1)
rdf:_1 ( Seq1, A )
rdf:_2 ( Seq1, B )
rdf:_3 ( Seq1, C )
saying: A is primarily responsible, B is ....
(mostly C didn't contribute anything at all,
he/she is just the boss of A or B ;-)
> If we believe that the
> members of a collective authoring team aren't individually creators, I'd
> argue that dc:contributor is more applicable.
Yes, I think this is a valid *conclusion* :
dc:creator ( doc, bag1)
rdf:_1 ( bag1, A )
rdf:_2 ( bag1, B )
==> dc:contributor (doc, A)
dc:contributor (doc, B)
I never thought about it this way, RDF is very expressive ...
regards,
stefan
|