- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:07:31 +0200
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, public-lod@w3.org
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 01:49:56PM +0200, Dan Brickley wrote: > >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? Hi Dan, If you could write up a short proposal -- how the properties are defined, with a proposed mapping claim -- we could discuss this in the DCMI Usage Board and take a decision. We associate changes in the namespace RDF (and related namespace documentation) with formal decisions so would need to follow a process. Tom -- Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 13:08:15 UTC