dc/dcterms: creator

[tombaker]

EDITED

• dc11:creator (through 2019)

  Definition: "An entity primarily responsible for
  making the resource."

  Comment: "Examples of a Creator include a person, an
  organization, or a service. Typically, the name of a
  Creator should be used to indicate the entity."

• dcterms:creator (ISO 15836-2 / DCMIMT 2020)

  Definition: "An entity responsible for making the
  resource."

  Comment: "Recommended practice is to identify the
  creator with a URI. If this is not possible or
  feasible, a literal value that identifies the creator
  may be provided."

  range_includes:

  • http://purl.org/dc/terms/Agent

  Examples

  1. Shakespeare, William (a person)
  2. https://isni.org/isni/0000000121032683 (URI for a person)
  3. Hubble Space Telescope (a data service)
  4. UNESCO (an organization)

CHANGING NOW (unless I hear objections!)

• dc11:creator (DCMIMT 2020)

  No changes.

PROPOSED FOR FUTURE (to be voted)

• dc11:creator

  Declare equivalent to dcterms:
  Change definition to read: "An entity responsible for
  making the resource." (as per dcterms:, dropping the
  word "primarily")

  Use comment for dcterms:

[aisaac]

NB: the issue of equivalence is also at #65

[aisaac]

@tombaker why not having suggested to also copy the examples, as for #89 ?

[aisaac]

Hmm, interesting, I realize that there was a proposal to copy the examples in the first version #89 but it was removed after a short while...

[tombaker]

Hmm, interesting, I realize that there was a proposal to copy the

examples in the first version #89 <#89> but it was removed after a short while... Indeed, my first impulse was to cut-and-paste the examples from /terms/ to /1.1/. However, cut-and-paste is inherently brittle, as a strategy. It is at any rate not very DRY. And I was not entirely sure that the UB would actually want to do this. After discussion with Paul, I decided to leave these alone for now and rely on the "note" attached to each /1.1/ (already in the 2012 version) pointing out that a corresponding property with the same name exists in the /terms/ namespace. If we all decide that we prefer one approach over the other (i.e., replicating the examples in two places - or pointing from one to the other - or even finding a way to state that the terms are functionally equivalent), we can have that discussion, make the decision, and issue an update of DCMIMT at any time.

…

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 12:32 AM aisaac ***@***.***> wrote: Hmm, interesting, I realize that there was a proposal to copy the examples in the first version #89 <#89> but it was removed after a short while... — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#85?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAIOBJXAJ44MXSSTWLDRPHTQ56MHBA5CNFSM4KHBPRFKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEJCGAWA#issuecomment-574906456>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIOBJUKAVPDAXEI6T27ZJTQ56MHBANCNFSM4KHBPRFA> .

[aisaac]

Thanks for the explanation. I think the pointer approach makes sense!

[kcoyle]

+1 for limiting ourselves to those 2 essential changes for now. kc

…

On 1/16/20 4:06 AM, tombaker wrote: > Hmm, interesting, I realize that there was a proposal to copy the examples in the first version #89 <#89> but it was removed after a short while... Indeed, my first impulse was to cut-and-paste the examples from /terms/ to /1.1/. However, cut-and-paste is inherently brittle, as a strategy. It is at any rate not very DRY. And I was not entirely sure that the UB would actually want to do this. After discussion with Paul, I decided to leave these alone for now and rely on the "note" attached to each /1.1/ (already in the 2012 version) pointing out that a corresponding property with the same name exists in the /terms/ namespace. If we all decide that we prefer one approach over the other (i.e., replicating the examples in two places - or pointing from one to the other - or even finding a way to state that the terms are functionally equivalent), we can have that discussion, make the decision, and issue an update of DCMIMT at any time. On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 12:32 AM aisaac ***@***.***> wrote: > Hmm, interesting, I realize that there was a proposal to copy the examples > in the first version #89 <#89> but it > was removed after a short while... > > — > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#85?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAIOBJXAJ44MXSSTWLDRPHTQ56MHBA5CNFSM4KHBPRFKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEJCGAWA#issuecomment-574906456>, > or unsubscribe > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIOBJUKAVPDAXEI6T27ZJTQ56MHBANCNFSM4KHBPRFA> > . > — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#85?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAL53YLTVV2ZERSE6RVJFH3Q6BEVHA5CNFSM4KHBPRFKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEJD2ZVQ#issuecomment-575122646>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAL53YLUB3AIUCDXSVVQMWTQ6BEVHANCNFSM4KHBPRFA>.

-- Karen Coyle [email protected] http://kcoyle.net skype: kcoylenet