W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2009

Re: Common Tag, FOAF and Dublin Core Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:45:37 +0200
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0906180545g49402d36lfc9f435ac1b2a303@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, public-lod@w3.org, Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>

(I keep forgetting the excellent DC makeover)

2009/6/18 Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>:
> On 18/6/09 13:31, Bernard Vatant wrote:
>> Rob, Danny (and Dan)
>>>>> ... 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?
> cheers,
> Dan

Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 12:46:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:15:57 UTC