[rdfweb-dev] Proposal: UsingDublinCoreCreator

[Karl Dubost]

Le jeudi, 24 juil 2003, à 08:58 America/Montreal, Dan Brickley a écrit :
>>
>> Comment: Examples of a Creator include a person, an organisation, or a
>> service.  Typically, the name of a Creator should be used to indicate
> ---------------------------^^^^
>
> (this entity versus it's name thing is the problem)

hmmm... maybe I don't have enough knowledge of it. but I can't figure 
out the problem.
The creator can be designated by Dan Brickley or Foo Inc. it's a name 
which is used in some circumstances to designate the entity.

> I don't think anyone was proposing we refine dc:creator. The problem is
> that Dublin Core hasn't yet come up with a way of allowing names and
> other information about creators to be written down in an unambiguous
> way.

I guess there will be always ambiguities. I'm not a number :) but I am 
sometimes depending on the context.

> I've been involved with Dublin Core since 1997, am a co-editor on two 
> of
> the DC-in-RDF specs, was briefly co-chair of the DCMI Architecture WG

I know that.

> and generally have spent a lot of time worrying about doing the 'right
> thing' by DC. I'm sad that dc:creator is still confusing after all this
> time, and that I've played a part in that mess.

Don't worry, you will be burnt like Giordano Bruno.

>> If you are not satisfied with the original property, create a new one
>> which is more complex and suit your needs.
>
> What I've done is the opposite: created a fresh new property that is
> _less_ complex than the original. Basically I think the thing to do 
> here
> is stand back from the legacy of dc:creator and get some experience 
> with
> a simpler property that does nothing at all except relate things to the
> things that made them. Most of the problem with dc:creator is mixed
> expectations. People want it to do too many things at once...
>
>
>>
>> Is the problem that you can't distinguish between a human and a
>> machine? If it's that, you can add a property to qualify the nature of
>> the creator, something ala type="person".
>
> No, the problem is that there is no clear answer to questions such as
> 'what is the dc:creator of this document?', since the allowed answers
> include (i) the name of the creator, and (ii) the creator him/herself.

what's the difference between (i) and (ii), except if (ii) is the real 
thing. I'm not ready to be dematerialize and put in an RDF file. /me 
will never be a computerized thing.

> In RDF, this is really confusing, having a single property point to
> radically different things. A person is not his/her name...

	A person is not his/her name
	but a person can be identified by his/her name.
	A person is not a computing object as well. I will have always to use 
a reference to label something made or expressed by me.


> No, that's a side-discussion (on whether non-Person Agents can create
> things). The issue / problem here is purely to do with the vague
> definition of dc:creator, which allows both people and their names to
> 'count' as being the creator of a thing.

Can you give me an example where you have creator used as you said. I 
have difficulties to figure out what you are saying.

1. <dc:creator>Name of Person</dc:creator>
2. <dc:creator>Person</dc:creator>

In 2. what do you mean?

> Keeping track of workflow in that style is definitely useful, I think
> modelling events in the workflow is the way to go.
> http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/harmony/docs/abc/abc_draft.html 
> for
> some old ideas on that...

I will look at that. :)

and at the wiki. :)
http://rdfweb.org/topic/UsingDublinCoreCreator