Comments embedded below...
Andy
________________________________
Andy Powell
Research Programme Director
Eduserv
[log in to unmask]
01225 474319 / 07989 476710
www.eduserv.org.uk
efoundations.typepad.com
twitter.com/andypowe11
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DCMI Architecture Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Thomas Baker
> Sent: 07 September 2009 02:20
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Best practice for dc/dcterms:creator, foaf:maker, foaf:name
>
> 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).
I don't have strong views on this particular proposal though in terms of semantics I don't see any obvious problems.
I do think that DCMI needs to be careful in making such a reciprocal assertion in the sense that it will set a precedent. Is the plan to make lots of such assertions? How will decisions be made as to what is worthy of making such assertions about and what isn't?
> 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.
Given that the range of dcterms:creator is dcterms:Agent, the second sentence is confusing (at best) and very misleading (at worst). So yes, it should be dropped as soon as possible.
> 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?
No, definitely not. We should be encouraging proper usage of dcterms:creator (the second sentence above is part of the reason for the confusion here).
Andy.
> 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]>
Eduserv has moved office! For details visit www.eduserv.org.uk/contacts
|
