- From: Edd Dumbill <edd@usefulinc.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:09:49 +0000
- To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, public-wai-ert@w3.org, www-qa@w3.org
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