- From: Benjamin O'Steen <bosteen@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:19:53 +0100
- To: Rob Styles <rob.styles@talis.com>
- Cc: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, public-lod@w3.org, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, François Dongier <francois.dongier@gmail.com>, Andraz Tori <andraz@zemanta.com>
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 11:55 +0100, Rob Styles wrote: > On 18 Jun 2009, at 11:48, Danny Ayers wrote: > > > 2009/6/18 Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>: > > > >> That said, 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. > > rob How about dcterms:created as a refinement on dc:date too? http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-created Ben
Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 11:25:34 UTC