Hi Dan,
On June 19, Tom wrote to dc-usage:
> By popular request, Dan wants FOAF to say that foaf:maker is a
> sub-property of dcterms:creator and asks whether DCMI could make
> a reciprocal claim. I invited him to submit a short proposal
> describing how the properties are defined, with a proposed
> mapping claim. We could discuss this and decide at the meeting
> in Seoul.
I am writing to progress the idea of reciprocal mapping claims
relating foaf:maker to dcterms:creator (see email digest below).
We have an opportunity to discuss this at the Usage Board
meeting in Seoul on Friday, 16 October. I would need a few
sentences proposing the mapping claim and any other proposed
changes to DCMI term documentation and schemas, such as a
seeAlso by a week from now -- Monday, 14 September -- at the
latest. An email message is enough. Our point of reference
will be the two definitions cited below.
In Seoul, we will also consider a proposal to DROP the second
sentence of the usage comment for dcterms:creator ("Typically,
the name of a Creator should be used to indicate the entity."),
leaving the comment in place for dc:creator.
This might also be a good time to discuss the recommendation
made in the FOAF specification, that "FOAF descriptions are
encouraged to use dc:creator only for simple textual names". Is
this still what we want to encourage?
I am posting this on dc-architecture in order to open the
discussion beyond dc-usage. I believe it was Bernard Vatant,
who recently joined dc-architecture, that originally raised this
topic on [log in to unmask]
Tom
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-creator
Definition: An entity primarily responsible for making the resource.
Comment: Examples of a Creator include a person, an organization, or
a service. Typically, the name of a Creator should be used
to indicate the entity.
http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_maker
maker - An agent that made this thing.
Status: stable
Domain: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Thing
Range: foaf:Agent
The foaf:maker property relates something to a foaf:Agent
that foaf:made it. As such it is an inverse of the
foaf:made property.
The foaf:name (or other rdfs:label) of the foaf:maker of
something can be described as the dc:creator of that thing.
For example, if the thing named by the URI
http://rdfweb.org/people/danbri/ has a foaf:maker that is a
foaf:Person whose foaf:name is 'Dan Brickley', we can
conclude that http://rdfweb.org/people/danbri/ has a
dc:creator of 'Dan Brickley'.
FOAF descriptions are encouraged to use dc:creator only for
simple textual names, and to use foaf:maker to indicate
creators, rather than risk confusing creators with their
names. This follows most Dublin Core usage. See
UsingDublinCoreCreator for details.
======================================================================
Digest of related email
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2009-06-18 From: Dan Brickley <[log in to unmask]>
To: Bernard Vatant <[log in to unmask]>
CC: [log in to unmask], Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Common Tag, FOAF and Dublin Core Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention
On 18/6/09 13:31, Bernard Vatant wrote:
>>>> ... why not use simply dc:creator and dc:date to this effect?
>>>
>>> Right. dc:date would seem a good choice, though I reckon foaf:maker
>>> might be a better option than dc:creator as the object is a resource
>>> (a foaf:Agent) rather than a literal. While it's likely to mean an
>>> extra node in many current scenarios, it offers significantly more
>>> prospect for linking data (and less ambiguity).
>>
>> dcterms:creator would also allow for use of a resource. Bibliontology
>> uses dcterms over dc.
> Well I actually meant dcterms:creator when I wrote dc:creator, sorry. So
> you can link your personal tags to your foaf profile, for example.
> And it's consistent even for tag:AutoTag, since the range of
> dcterms:creator is dcterms:Agent, including person, organisation and
> software agent as well.
> Unless I miss some sublte distinguo dcterms:Agent is equivalent to
> foaf:Agent, and dcterms:creator equivalent to foaf:maker. BTW, with due
> respect to danbri, I wish FOAF would be revised to align whenever
> possible on dcterms vocabulary, now that it has clean declarations of
> classes, domains and ranges ...
> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms is worth (re)visiting :-)
Completely agree. I'm very happy with the direction of DC terms. The
foaf:maker property was essential for a while, until DC was cleaned up.
I'll mark it as a sub-property of dcterms:creator. I hope we'll get
reciprocal claims into the Dublin Core RDF files some day too...
Copying Tom Baker here. Tom - what would the best process be for adding
in mapping claims to the DC Terms RDF? Maybe we could draft some RDF,
put it onto dublincore.org elsewhere, and for now add a seeAlso from the
namespace RDF?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2009-06-18 From: Danny Ayers <[log in to unmask]>
+1
(I keep forgetting the excellent DC makeover)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2009-06-18 from Tom
Cc: Bernard Vatant <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
If you could write up a short proposal -- how the properties are
defined, with a proposed mapping claim -- we could discuss this
in the DCMI Usage Board and take a decision. We associate
changes in the namespace RDF (and related namespace
documentation) with formal decisions so would need to follow a
process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2009-06-18 From: Dan Brickley <[log in to unmask]>
Sounds like a plan! Thanks. I'll take it to DC lists and report back
here as things progress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2009-06-19 to dc-usage
FYI - an exchange with Dan Brickley on the Linked Open Data
mailing list.
By popular request, Dan wants FOAF to say that foaf:maker is a
sub-property of dcterms:creator and asks whether DCMI could make
a reciprocal claim. I invited him to submit a short proposal
describing how the properties are defined, with a proposed
mapping claim. We could discuss this and decide at the meeting
in Seoul.
--
Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>
|