For emerging discussion on people and identity please see http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_12/schneider/index.html
Cecil E. Somerton
Information Management Analyst | Analyste de gestion de l'information
IM Strategies | Stratégies de la gestion de l'information
Chief Information Officer Branch | Direction du dirigeant principal de l'information
Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat | Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor du Canada
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0R5
613 946-5053 | [log in to unmask] | facsimile/télécopieur 613 946-9342
From: General DCMI discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andrew Wilson
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 5:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: people metadata
Exactly. What Pete says - the Agents WG is not limited in the way that
Liddy suggests. John Robert and I, the co-chairs of DC-Agents, have
been trying to get interest and involvement for the last couple of
years with absolutely no result. The Agents WG is working on developing
a way of describing agents - at the moment we are changing the WG into
a task Group consisting intially of myself, Dan Brickley, and Tom Baker
to look at whether and how FOAF meets the needs of the DC community for
describing agents. Perhaps this discussion could be copied to the
DC-Agents email list?
Quoting Pete Johnston <[log in to unmask]>:
>> I think that DC agents is a group who are working on what should be
>> the DC way to approach vales for such elements as creator,
>> contributor, publisher, etc while I think the encyclopaedia people
>> want to describe people, not resources....
> Sorry, I don't understand the distinction you are making here.
> People are resources. In the terms of the DCMI Abstract Model, the
> "values" for the creator, contributor, publisher etc properties _are_
> people (well, they are "entities" or "agents", which might also be
> resources other than people, like organisations or services).
> So, as Irvin says, yes, this - the description of agents - is
> _exactly_ the remit of the DC Agents WG. Scanning the mailing list
> suggests that the Agents WG has received almost no interest for at
> least the last couple of years.
[log in to unmask]