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: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@uninsubria.it>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:03:32 +0200
Message-ID: <487470D4.7050301@uninsubria.it>
To: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
CC: "Smith, Kevin, \(R&D\) VF-Group" <Kevin.Smith@vodafone.com>, chaals@opera.com, public-powderwg@w3.org

I was writing quite a long email on this issue, following Chaals's one, 
where I was arguing that, probably, neither dcterms:creator nor 
foaf:maker are the right choice for POWDER, since dcterms:Agent and 
foaf:Agent denote not only individuals / organizations, but also 
software agents / physical artifacts. Can the latter be authors / 
endorsers of POWDER documents?

Anyway, IMO, this issue does not need to be fixed now. We are not 
releasing the definitive version of the POWDER specs, and we have time 
to revise them.

So, +1 from me to Phil's proposal.

Andrea


Phil Archer wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 08:05:05 GMT

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