discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work

[Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>]

This didn't make it to the list as non-subscriber postings are rejected. 
 I added a passthru for Edd in case there is followup discussion.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: DOAP
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:12:22 +0100
From: Edd Dumbill <edd AT usefulinc.com>
To: Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>
CC: cc-metadata <cc-metadata AT lists.ibiblio.org>,	Dan Brickley 
<danbri AT w3.org>
References: <40F6BE63.8070900 AT creativecommons.org>

On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 10:26 -0700, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> http://usefulinc.com/doap
>
> Description-Of-A-Project is a vocabulary for describing open source 
> projects that builds on FOAF.
>
> There may be some concepts in there useful for some "open content" 
> projects as well, e.g., category, translator, download-mirror.
>
> It'd be nice if DOAP used or subpropertied (is that a word?) CC's 
> license term rather than introducing a new term.

My aim has been to make the terms that the project needs, and then to
use the RDF schema to relate them to existing terms.  I've been around
the houses with this once before on RSS 1.0, and it ended up in a bit of
a confusing mix.  This time I need the lowest possible barrier to
adoption.  Those that care about the RDF-ness of it are happy using
schemas.

I will be endeavouring as much as I can to make doap:license subproperty
of cc:license.  I don't see any reason why I shouldn't add this to the
DOAP schema.

> One obvious missing term is forkOf.  Or perhaps dc:source could be used.

Yes, that's a good comment.

> In general I don't really understand why FOAF and now DOAP don't use or 
> subclass/property terms defined by Dublin Core when appropriate, which 
> would seem to me to be often.

Dan Brickley (CC'd, if he's not on the list already) can speak to FOAF.
DOAP's a work in progress -- especially the RDF schema -- and will add
in subclass/property relationships to DC where it is appropriate.

As to where the appropriateness of DC reuse lies, while on the face of
it this would seem to be in many places, unfortunately Dublin Core has
some problems in the looseness of the definition of its terms (e.g.
range of dc:creator), which cause confusion.  At least to me.

Thanks for your comments, anyway.  I'm glad to be challenged, and glad
of the interest.  You may find reading the backstory linked from
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-osproj.html and
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-osproj2/ instructive
in figuring out where I'm coming from on this.

--
Edd Dumbill, Editor-at-Large, O'Reilly Network
More from me on my weblog -- http://usefulinc.com/edd/blog
Mono book -- http://usefulinc.com/edd/books/mono-notebook



--
  Mike Linksvayer
  http://creativecommons.org/learn/aboutus/people#21