RE: author vs. creator

hi dan,

in ebu, i use a lot contributor and i have maintained for years a role list available in xml and skos/rdf.

the link is for the xml and there is another sbudir with html under /web.

skos is under where i must update ebucore soon

the role list is built upon mpeg and tvanytime. I look at crew lists and went on websites specialised in offering jobs.

anyway, I think it is a good start for av production, film and tv.

I have been looking at the thread onenumerations recently and I wish I would have time to submit part of the CSs to the benefit of the community

What do you think?

From: Dan Brickley []
Sent: 01 May 2012 00:21
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc: Martin Hepp; Aaron Bradley; Public Vocabs; Thomas Baker
Subject: Re: author vs. creator

+cc: Tom Baker (from Dublin Core)

On 30 April 2012 23:02, Evain, Jean-Pierre <> 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 gives an
account as to how to use them as a specialization of 'dc:contributor'.

Here's the full list, 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 context (maybe some open/linked library dataset stats
would help?). They're pretty close to the
work too, being basically coded job names... (for the subset of jobs
that contribute to the production of documentable artifacts?).


This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway

Received on Monday, 30 April 2012 22:43:15 UTC