[Fwd: Re: skos and dc example]

[Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>]

Mikael's reply ...

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: skos and dc example
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:45:01 +0200
From: Mikael Nilsson <xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: DCMI Architecture Forum <DC-ARCHITECTURE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
To: DC-ARCHITECTURE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
References: <04a5f4342131a79a5c73086ee5ca642c@gmail.com> 
<1184411366.7527.12.camel@daneel>   <4698DE62.9070603@gmail.com> 
     <1184424544.7527.53.camel@daneel>   <4698E8DF.1000309@gmail.com>

lör 2007-07-14 klockan 11:16 -0400 skrev Bruce D'Arcus:
> cc-ing the ODF metadata list since Mikael has some suggestion for Svante 
> and Patrick ...

[Note that DC-ARCH filters out any other lists from the headers, so I
can't reply to that list... ]

> 
> Mikael Nilsson wrote:
> 
> > Nice! I'm very happy to see that ODF gets such an excellent metadata
> > framework. Do you have any recommendations on vocabulary?
> 
> Good question!
> 
> No, but this is why I was asking the questions about the new dcterms 
> stuff. E.g. I would like us to suggest vocabularies, even if
> informally. 
> I think it would be bad form to just introduce this system and not give 
> developers help in figuring out how to most effectively use it.

Yes, naturally ....

> 
> So I would obviously like to suggest DC, and preferably that people 
> prefer to use the new dcterms properties.

That is certainly in line with what the DCMI would like to see.

> 
> In fact, in the next couple of weeks I need to provide a mapping from 
> the old BibTeX key-value citation support to RDF so that we can move 
> citation support to the new framework. I'm working on that as part of 
> the work at bibliontology.com, but we're planning to use as much of DC 
> as we can, and we're faced with the problem: do we use dc:date or 
> dcterms:date, dc:title or dcterms:title?

BibTex and RDF, great!

> 
> Note: the citation stuff is independent of ODF, but we'll be faced with 
> the same problems with ODF more generally.
> 
> You once offered to liason with us Mikael. We'd happy if you have any 
> suggestions on this issue going forward.

I'm willing to help in any way I might... I think these things are
pretty important going forward.

> 
> My preference would be that we issue a kind of 
> best-practices/tutorial/suggested vocabularies document or set of 
> documents; probably at the URI for the metadata namespace. I'd like if 
> we could suggest using the new dcterms properties as soon as the DCMI 
> has finalized them.

Yes, I'd recommend you work under the assumption that they are going to
be published soon. The proposal is here:

http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/07/02/domain-range/

> 
> Am also hoping to see the new vCard-in-RDF stuff stabilize so we can 
> suggest to use it.
> 
> > A few (surely late, but still) comments:
> > 
> > 1. The indentation in the ontology snippets makes it unnecessarily hard
> > to read.
> 
> Agreed. XML fragments in the spec ought to be indented.

I'm also talking about the breaking of long lines which contributes to
the confusion...

> 
> > 2. Section 1.2 on in-content metadata seems to duplicate a lot of the
> > work on RDFa  ( http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-rdfa-primer/ ), which is
> > focused on XHTML, but still. 
> 
> Yes, that is by design. Elias Torres from IBM (also very involved in 
> RDFa) is responsible for most of that. We did adapt some of it obviously.

Perhaps you should mention and reference RDFa so that noone makes the
false assumption that you did this independently??


> We tried to reuse as much as possible from elsewhere; the only thing I 
> think we did that was really new was a) defining a mechanism to bind 
> external RDF statements to XML nodes (which, come to think of it, could 
> be used in XHTML), and b) the new RDF-based manifest for the package.
> 
> Oh, and the new generic field describe in RDF is pretty clever if I do 
> say so myself ;-)

Please explain! I'm not sure what you are referring to.

/Mikael

> 
-- 
<mikael@nilsson.name>

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose