Re: [VM] [rdfweb-dev] proposals for enhancing the descriptions of foaf terms

Dan,

DC terms are identified with permanent URIrefs, e.g.
http://purl.org/dc/terms/abstract [1].  However, the Description
of a term -- the bundle of attributes such as Label and
Definition and including Status -- also has a URI.

DC Usage Board decisions that result in a term being changed --
editorial clarification, change of status, creation of a new
term, etc -- are seen as events which trigger the creation of
a new Description associated with a Term.

In effect, the versioning method is analogous to W3C's method
of versioning documents, where

    http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/

is analogous to http://purl.org/dc/terms/abstract and

    http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-rdf-primer-20031215/

are analogous to

    http://dublincore.org/usage/terms/history/#abstract-002
    http://dublincore.org/usage/terms/history/#abstract-001

This policy has been followed in practice but has not yet
gone through the process of becoming official, so we could
still perhaps modify it in response to critical feedback.
Moving this policy through to official status will be one
topic of discussion in Shanghai next week in the meetings
of the Usage Board [2], the Architecture Working Group [3],
and perhaps in the Semantic Web session on Monday afternoon.

Tom

[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-namespace/
[2] http://www.bi.fhg.de/People/Thomas.Baker/ISSUES/version-identifiers/
[3] http://www.bi.fhg.de/People/Thomas.Baker/Architecture.ppt

> Tom, could you comment from a DC perspective. How are the DC Usage Board 
> decisions represented? Any conventions we could share?
> 
> Dan
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@appmosphere.com> -----
> 
> From: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@appmosphere.com>
> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:47:35 +0200
> To: rdfweb-dev@vapours.rdfweb.org
> Subject: [rdfweb-dev] proposals for enhancing the descriptions of foaf terms
> Message-ID: <PM-EH.20040922214735.F30B9.1.1D@192.168.27.2>
> Organization: appmosphere web applications
> 
> 
> [[
> 17:04:57 <danbri> action: bengee propose some clarifications
> re lifecycle/stability vocab to list, goal of having better
> machine-readable status for FOAF namespace
> ]]
> (from 2004-09-22's IRC chat [1])
> 
> 
> There are actually two proposals we could discuss on this list
> (whether they make sense at all, how/if they could be
> implemented, etc.):
> 
> 1) The foaf spec should give more info about a term's lifecycle
>    stage than it is currently done via the "unstable"/"testing"/
>    "stable" term_status annotations. At the moment, it's not
>    possible to see, e.g. *when* a term's status went to "testing".
>    Or how long a term has been "unstable" (which could maybe tell
>    a tool developer how actively it is maintained/how likely it
>    is to move to "stable", etc).
> 
> 2) the FOAF namespace should distinguish terms which "may be
>    removed from spec", from terms whose "usage is discouraged"
>    (because there are better idioms to use), but which will
>    probably stay in the namespace indefinitely.
> 
> 
> some thoughts:
>  re 1)
>    We could use prose w/ owl:versionInfo, but having some kind
>    of machine-readable "lastmodified" annotation would e.g.
>    allow auto-generating an RSS feed for updated/added terms.
>    This would also be possible if we used an agreed-on date/time
>    format and owl:versionInfo. perhaps a DC term could be used.
> 
>  re 2)
>    owl:Deprecated[Class|Property] could cover at least one of
>    the cases. The owl reference doc says "by deprecating a term,
>    it means that the term should not be used in new documents
>    that commit to the ontology". As "may be removed from the
>    spec" somehow includes "usage is discouraged", we possibly
>    don't even need to distinguish the cases. A mentioned
>    alternative would be the use of recommended term subsets
>    (aka profiles ;) for different use cases or application
>    areas. A re-worded proposal could then be "the foaf
>    terms should have (machine-readable) pointers to application
>    areas/use cases/implementing apps" which could allow the
>    automatic generation of subsets for given use cases, or
>    term sets of widely deployed terms."
> 
> 
> ideas, comments, objections?
> 
> /action item bengee
> 
> [1]
> http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2004-09-22.html#T17-04-57
> 
> 
> benjamin
> 
> --
> Benjamin Nowack
> 
> Kruppstr. 100
> 45145 Essen, Germany
> http://www.appmosphere.com/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rdfweb-dev mailing list
> rdfweb-dev@vapours.rdfweb.org
> wiki: http://rdfweb.org/topic/FoafProject
> http://rdfweb.org/mailman/listinfo/rdfweb-dev
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> 

-- 
Dr. Thomas Baker                        Thomas.Baker@izb.fraunhofer.de
Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven         mobile +49-160-9664-2129
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft                          work +49-30-8109-9027
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany                    fax +49-2241-144-2352
Personal email: thbaker79@alumni.amherst.edu

Received on Thursday, 7 October 2004 12:51:33 UTC