W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > April 2012

Re: author vs. creator

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 00:21:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFrgeNdAwECcfrFROBScNVc6dgZ4XBf-GkDMk8BxEPAvRA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>
Cc: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@yahoo.com>, Public Vocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
+cc: Tom Baker (from Dublin Core)

On 30 April 2012 23:02, Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch> wrote:
> Author is very specific and has more the meaning of original writer (rNews comes from the press).
> But even creator, in the audiovisual world is not a perfect match although we live with it with the notion of in front vs. behind the camera.
> Anyway, creator is now largely accepted. Then others would inevitably invent new words such as 'originator' or else. Therefore Creator is the best compromise I can think of.

In the library world, there's such as thing as the 'marc relator
terms', and http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/relators/ gives an
account as to how to use them as a specialization of 'dc:contributor'.

Here's the full list, http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators.html and
here's a smaller list
that has been mapped to Dublin Core properties (mostly but not
entirely to dc:contributor).

Perhaps some are a bit niche ('Puppeteer', 'Lithographer', ''Landscape
architect', ... but even considered as niches these roles employ
thousands of people. I'd like to know more about how these codes are
used, ... and think about whether and how they might be represented in
a schema.org context (maybe some open/linked library dataset stats
would help?). They're pretty close to the http://schema.org/JobPosting
work too, being basically coded job names... (for the subset of jobs
that contribute to the production of documentable artifacts?).

Received on Monday, 30 April 2012 22:22:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:48:45 UTC