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