Re: Using dc:isFormatOf to unify instanceOf and commonEndeavor with existing practise

Hi Niklas,

OK, I think we agree!

About this:

>     Not sure where we stopped, but it was certainly before finishing.
>     (though I know that some of DC has made its way into schema.org, as someone pointed out on this list yesterday)
>
>
> Does anyone have a reference to that, and to how that came about?
>


No. I guess it may be documented on the Web Schema wiki page, or somewhere in the mailing list.
I suppose they came as part of other 'packages'. Just as we could indeed include some DC properties in our documentation. That may be less easy to track... But I'm not sure we should worry a lot!

Best,

Antoine



> Hi Antoine,
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Niklas,
>
>
>         Not to worry (I suspected that the group had lost steam). I was thinking more along the lines of this group having more momentum to carry the remnants of DC mapping work forward. For one, has these definitions been included in either the DC terms vocabulary or the schema.org <http://schema.org> <http://schema.org> vocabulary (as RDF/OWL statements, possibly linked to via an rdfs:seeAlso)? That would make it definitive that the alignment has been approved by either maintainer.
>
>
>
>     Not sure where we stopped, but it was certainly before finishing.
>     (though I know that some of DC has made its way into schema.org <http://schema.org>, as someone pointed out on this list yesterday)
>
>
> Does anyone have a reference to that, and to how that came about?
>
>
>         (Compare this with GoodRelations, where there are at least partial mappings in place.)
>
>
>
>     GR is a different case. They are class-based, so putting the mapping in place was relatively well focused. With DC you'd have to check in every class of schema.org <http://schema.org> if there's a property that looks like the general DC ones...
>
>
>
>
>         Furthermore, as said I don't expect us to propose anything near a strict WEMI abstraction.
>
>
>
>     I was not worried about WEMI for the sake of WEMI. It's just the length of discussion involved, even if we end up with something simpler.
>
>
> I agree. We'll keep these discussions confined to this list.
>
>
>         But I claim that there are pressing use cases that can be addressed with plain DC terms, and which I implore that we seriously consider. Instead of inventing new stuff; or for that matter, waiting for BIBFRAME to stabilize a new kind of WI abstraction, which is already under dispute.
>         I believe that we should ensure that any new properties introduced relating to the field of bibliographic descriptions are, if applicable, derived from the existing DC terms set. Now, if there are other members in the DCMI/Schema.org Alignment TG not present here which might find that valuable, I think we should make it clear that we could do this. That is, if we ourselves think it is valuable. You know I do. ;)
>
>
>
>
>     Your goals are much respectable. But they don't require a merging of activities. A loose coupling as I suggested, *after* a first pattern has been agreed in the SchemaBibEx group, would be enough.
>
>
> Agreed. At this point, is seems very unclear if this group is interested in building on the DC terms at all, so we'll certainly have to determine that first. If that would become an intent of ours, we might want to do an informal ping to relevant persons though; and/or get a reference to this group on that wiki page (on dublincore.org <http://dublincore.org>), for other passers-by. We'll see how things pan out.
>
> Cheers,
> Niklas
>
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Antoine
>

Received on Monday, 8 July 2013 20:05:02 UTC