Re: DOAP and software description

On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 23:01 +0100, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> Hi Edd,
> 
> Thanks for providing this. Just a question, why have you decided to
> introduce doap:created instead of reusing dc:date?

I wanted all the terms to be in one namespace.  DOAP's meant to be
accessible to people who never met RDF before, and who never want to
care either.

We went mixed-namespace with RSS 1.0 and it was messy.  From my point of
view, the schema's the place where we can put things like how
doap:created releates to dc:date.

Additionally, I have never personally found Dublin Core elements well
defined enough to be able to reuse them as exact specification of what
is expected.  e.g. dc:author.  Perhaps things have moved on, in which
case I'd be happy to hear of this.

> Also, I think an optional description for the project or software may
> be useful too. However, I don't know how that fits in (it doesn't seem
> to be part of the <version> information).

We have doap:name, doap:shortdesc and doap:description as properties of
doap:Project.  However, the schema does not constrain this, so you are
free to use them as properties of doap:Version too.  So, this is already
possible.

Please take a look at the docs, schema and examples on
http://usefulinc.com/doap -- it might answer some questions.

cheers

-- Edd

Received on Friday, 17 March 2006 22:08:33 UTC