W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > July 2008

Re: Revisiting foaf:maker (was Re: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: use dcterms for the maker element and rename to creator)

From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 08:00:50 +0100
Message-ID: <48746222.5030105@icra.org>
To: "Smith, Kevin, \(R&D\) VF-Group" <Kevin.Smith@vodafone.com>
CC: chaals@opera.com, public-powderwg@w3.org



Smith, Kevin, (R&D) VF-Group wrote:
> Regarding the XML Schema part: yes; you can enforce a choice.
> Kev

Aha! Right, thank you, I think that gives us a way forward, cake and 
eating-wise. Taking all this on board (and not without sympathy to 
Paul's point!) how about this:

We use <creator> -> dcterms:creator -> dcterms:Agent in our examples

We state that <maker> -> foaf:maker -> foaf:Agent is an acceptable 
alternative, noting that, at the time of this writing, it seems likely 
that the two will come into even closer alignment

WDYT?

Phil

> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: public-powderwg-request@w3.org <public-powderwg-request@w3.org>
> To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
> Cc: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>
> Sent: Wed Jul 09 07:38:47 2008
> Subject: Revisiting foaf:maker (was Re: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: use dcterms for  the maker element and rename to creator)
> 
> 
> I've been much vexed by this discussion. In summary:
> 
> - We have used FOAF so far for the reasons Charles articulates
> 
> - And yet Dan Bri himself says: "my recommendation would be to make sure 
> the basic creator/Agent thing is doable in plain DC terms, but allow 
> FOAF for adding more optional detail" [1] (did you see that Charles?)
> 
> There's nothing to stop you putting FOAF properties inside a 
> dcterms:Agent class.
> 
> - Kai asked whether we could let users choose. Doing this does make it 
> harder to check for validity against the schema - but does harder mean 
> impossible? i.e. is it possible in XML Schema to require either of 2 
> choices be used? Kev/Andrea?
> 
> - Would defining our own property that had a a range of both 
> dcterms:Agent and foaf:Agent fix this? Well, it gives us a sort of fix 
> but a putative wdrs:author isn't dcterms:creator or foaf:maker so it 
> might make matters worse, not better.
> 
> Ever wish you'd never asked a question?
> 
> Phil
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Jul/0029.html
> 
> 
> Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>> There are a few points in this discussion that make me not vote for the 
>> proposal.
>>
>> I think that it is important to have something where RDF machines can 
>> actually process RDF. foaf:Agent has real subclasses we want, dc:Agent 
>> doesn't, yet. There are also the useful properties of an Agent the foaf 
>> provides to describe it.
>>
>> I think the foaf:logo property is useful (although non-critical).
>>
>> FOAF is, in practice, remarkably widely adopted, and probably in overall 
>> quality the use is no worse and perhaps better than DC. As an 
>> implementor, we don't see that there is any special problem using this 
>> vocabulary - the people who maintain it have shown themselves to 
>> understand normal standards processes, be responsive and helpful, 
>> provide the kind of stability that is needed for a standard, and I don't 
>> see evidence that the community around FOAF is any different.
>>
>> If I am the only one voting against, I will withdraw. If foaf:Agent were 
>> defined as a subclass of dcterms:Agent, then the point would become 
>> moot, although we would still have a messier schema. But as things 
>> stand, I don't see the need for this change.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Chaals
>>
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:56:35 +0200, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org> wrote:
>>
>>> All valid points Andrea.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how strictly property ranges are ever actually enforced. 
>>> There are plenty of instances of <dc:creator 
>>> rdf:resource="http://...foaf.rdf#me" on the Web and the range of 
>>> dc:creator is string. Actually, I believe it is this fact, that 
>>> emerged at the 2005 DC conference that I had the pleasure of 
>>> attending, that was one of the drivers for the change to dcterms:creator.
>>>
>>> In other words, my guess is that we may well see quite a few 
>>> dcterms:creator elements pointing to a foaf:Organization class... and 
>>> UAs may or may not notice.
>>>
>>> P
>>>
>>> Andrea Perego wrote:
>>>>  +1 from me too.
>>>>  The only issue I see here is that, this way, DR authors should use 
>>>> dcterms:Agent instead of foaf:Person / foaf:Organization in their RDF 
>>>> (FOAF?) /profile/ (i.e., the set of RDF statements describing the DR 
>>>> author). And foaf:Person / foaf:Organization are more "popular" than 
>>>> dcterms:Agent, as far as I know. And it may be often the case that a 
>>>> DR author already has a FOAF profile to pointing to: should he/she 
>>>> modify it?
>>>>  Probably this will be fixed in the future. According to their formal 
>>>> definition, between foaf:Agent (and its subclasses) and dcterms:Agent 
>>>> there does not exist any subClassOf / equivalentClass relationship. 
>>>> However, they look pretty similar - at least based on their NL 
>>>> definition:
>>>> - foaf:Agent: "An agent (eg. person, group, software or physical 
>>>> artifact)." [1]
>>>> - dcterms:Agent: "A resource that acts or has the power to act. 
>>>> Examples of Agent include person, organization, and software agent." [2]
>>>>  If I'm not mistaken, this may correspond to one of the 
>>>> foaf<->dcterms mappings that Dan mentioned in his mail [3].
>>>>  Andrea
>>>>  [1]http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Agent
>>>> [2]http://dublincore.org/usage/terms/history/#Agent-001
>>>> [3]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Jul/0029.html
>>>>   Phil Archer wrote:
>>>>> Following my exchange with Dan Bri just now [1], I'd like to propose 
>>>>> that we change the name of the POWDER <maker> element to <creator> 
>>>>> and change the transform so that this becomes <dcterms:creator>.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that the legacy (and commonly seen) dc:creator just takes a 
>>>>> string whereas dcterms:creator has the range of dcterms:Agent.
>>>>>
>>>>> This does not prevent using FOAF terms within a dcterms:Agent class 
>>>>> (which is good because FOAF has some very useful terms already) but 
>>>>> it does eliminate POWDER's formal dependence on FOAF.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can consider the resolution properly next week at the f2f but if 
>>>>> there are any comments ahead of that, please speak up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] 
>>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Jul/0028.html 
>>>>> onwards
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 07:01:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:13 GMT