- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:10:26 +0200
- To: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- CC: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, public-lod@w3.org
On 18/6/09 15:07, Thomas Baker wrote: > 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. Sounds like a plan! Thanks. I'll take it to DC lists and report back here as things progress. cheers, Dan
Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 13:11:11 UTC