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 ...
> 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 elsewhere, and for now add a seeAlso from the 
namespace RDF?



Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 11:50:36 UTC