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

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 11:50:36 UTC