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 https://github.com/dcmi/usage/issues/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 notifications@github.com wrote:

Hmm, interesting, I realize that there was a proposal to copy the examples in the first version #89 https://github.com/dcmi/usage/issues/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 https://github.com/dcmi/usage/issues/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 https://github.com/dcmi/usage/issues/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 notifications@github.com wrote:

Hmm, interesting, I realize that there was a proposal to copy the examples in the first version #89 https://github.com/dcmi/usage/issues/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

https://github.com/dcmi/usage/issues/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 https://github.com/dcmi/usage/issues/85?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAL53YLTVV2ZERSE6RVJFH3Q6BEVHA5CNFSM4KHBPRFKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEJD2ZVQ#issuecomment-575122646, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAL53YLUB3AIUCDXSVVQMWTQ6BEVHANCNFSM4KHBPRFA.

-- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net skype: kcoylenet