> I have some related concerns about the overuse of FOAF as an example
> for
> describing people. Yes, FOAF is useful for some things but does not
> necessarily provide the range of properties that those in the library
> community are looking for, and continuing to suggest that email
> address,
> affiliation, etc. are sufficient (or even desirable, given the
> maintenance issues) will, I think, provide an excuse for folks who are
> used to the richer data used on traditional library authority files to
> dismiss DCAPs. I think we could say that when LC Name Authority data
> is
> available with URIs it can be used here as well, without getting into
> too much trouble.
Isn't this the point of the section on Selecting or Defining Metadata
Terms though - reuse what you can, invent only what you must? The
aspects of FOAF that are usable should be used, as it introduces the
potential for more flexibility - the fact that FOAF isn't rich enough
for all aspects of Library authority files just means that librarian's
will have to look elsewhere or define new elements where existing FOAF
elements aren't enough.
I think there is a danger in trying to make this document digestible to
the (more conservative?) elements of an existing metadata community, it
becomes a 'library guide to DCAP' - there might be a place for a
document like this, but I don't think this is it.
In general I'd support the comments about examples used in this draft -
examples are just examples - they could all be replaced with
'example.com/1234' etc. but I think the use of real world examples is
better - but it shouldn't be taken as a recommendation for a particular
set of elements.
Owen
Owen Stephens
Assistant Director: eStrategy and Information Resources
Central Library
Imperial College London
South Kensington Campus
London
SW7 2AZ
t: +44 (0)20 7594 8829
e: [log in to unmask]
|