Re: wdrs:issuedby fc. foaf:maker and dcterms:creator

Comments inline below

Andrea Perego wrote:
>> Andrea, I hope you don't mind me moving this to the public list and 
>> renaming the thread - it's an important discussion. Thanks for 
>> pursuing it.
> No problem at all, Phil!
>> [snip]
>> What we want to be able to do is either of
>> <wdrs:issuedby>
>>   <foaf:Agent>
>>     ...
>>   </foaf:Agent>
>> </wdrs:issuedBy>
>> <wdrs:issuedby>
>>   <dcterms:Agent>
>>   ...
>>   </dcterms:Agent>
>> </wdrs:issuedby>
>> _without_ having to define our own Agent class - 2 is enough already!
> I agree. Note however that, by defining a class wdrs:Agent as the union 
> of dcterms:Agent and foaf:Agent, we are not requiring DR authors to use 
> it. They can use directly either dcterms:Agent or foaf:Agent. So, 
> defining wdrs:Agent would be just a way to support what you say above. 
> Moreover, such class would give us the opportunity of explaining what we 
> think can be DR author, and it could be later refined in order to make 
> it more near the actual notion of a DR author (as discussed in the 
> thread starting at [1]).

OK, that very sounds sensible. Unless there are objections, let's do that.

> A possible solution is the following:
> - defining wdrs:issuedby without specifying any subproperty relationship 
> with foaf:maker / dcterms:creator; in the specs, we state the semantics 
> of wdrs:issued, and we also say that it can be replaced by similar 
> terms, defined elsewhere, and we suggest (for the moment) 
> dcterms:creator and foaf:maker
> - the range of wdrs:issuedby can be left undefined or defined as the 
> union of dcterms:Agent and foaf:Agent

I don't like that as we don't want people to have free choice. They 
really MUST use either FOAF or dcterms. Your union of the Agent classes 
looks like the one to me - it matches the mood of last week's f2f and 
has the benefit of you having had time to think about it more than we 
did a week ago.



Received on Monday, 21 July 2008 10:53:42 UTC