Stephens, Owen wrote:
>> 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.
There's another option. I am more than happy to add things into FOAF
directly if it helps get data into the Web. There were a few hallway
conversations during DC2008 on how name authority files might be
expressed in RDF/FOAF, and I hope these can be continued (on a foaf4lib
list I'll announce shortly). While I realise that this doesn't address
all concerns about library use of FOAF (such as its informal image, lack
of institutional backing etc.), I do want to make it clear that I'm keen
to evolve it to better address the needs of the library community.
cheers,
Dan
--
http://danbri.org/
|