possible new terms ac:agentRole and ac:organization

[GoogleCodeExporter]

1. Provide an ac Term Name or Label. new terms

2. Describe the defect or lack of clarity you find in the term. 

Comment from Cyndy Parr <parrc@si.edu> during public comment:

Agents vocabulary
EOL has a richer agents extension available here:
http://eol.org/schema/agent_extension.xml
While I don't think it accounts for metadataCreators, it does account
for some other roles that may be relevant. Is there any chance of
borrowing from this?

Comment from Steve: There are two property terms in the agent_exetnsion.xml 
file that EOL defines that aren't in the FOAF vocabulary, eol:agentRole and 
eol:organization .  I did a quick look through the Dublin Core and BIBO 
vocabularies and didn't find anything like them.  I prowled through 
http://dublincore.org/documents/profile-guidelines/ and there were references 
leading me to  to some roles and terms to link to roles at 
http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/list/schema_id/4.html but I don't know 
how often these terms are actually used by anybody. 

So I guess the second question boils down to whether users other than EOL have 
a need for terms like eol:agentRole and eol:organization and whether AC should 
mint them.  The authors can consider this and solicit input from tdwg-content 
or other email lists.  

Original issue reported on code.google.com by steve.ba...@vanderbilt.edu on 25 Apr 2013 at 5:47

[GoogleCodeExporter]

MARC URIs for Relators at http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators.html possible 
controlled values for agentRole

Original comment by steve.ba...@vanderbilt.edu on 26 Apr 2013 at 11:32

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Comment from Margaret Cawsey <Margaret.Cawsey@csiro.au> after the public 
comment period:

I think I've found another gap in the Audubon Core, or if not would be grateful 
if somebody could point out my blind spot. I'm looking for something like 
"Quality". For example, the recordists might rate the quality of a recording as 
poor, fair, good, very good or excellent.

xmp:Rating doesn't seem to cut it because it gives a number between 0-5 and 
specifies that it is user-assigned, as opposed to collector- or 
institution-assigned.

I am going to use the term Quality in my database for now, but wonder what to 
map it to - for example it could be mapped to xmp:Rating if that turns out to 
be the appropriate thing.

Comment from Steve: This isn't actually exactly relevant to this issue, so if 
the authors want to try to deal with it they may want to move it to its own new 
issue.

Original comment by steve.ba...@vanderbilt.edu on 29 Apr 2013 at 3:47

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I have moved Margaret's issue to #73, commented on it, and marked it WontFix

Original comment by morris.bob on 2 Jun 2013 at 9:23

[GoogleCodeExporter]

In my opinion, nobody should be inventing their own provenance terms in view of 
how far along W3 is on this. See 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-prov-overview-20130430/.  I think the right 
thing to do is wait until the W3 PROV group finishes its work and study the 
applicability of the PROV data model for the next release of AC. I am marking 
this WontFix.

Original comment by morris.bob on 2 Jun 2013 at 9:30

• Changed state: WontFix

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by morris.bob on 3 Jun 2013 at 4:36

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by morris.bob on 3 Jun 2013 at 4:59

• Added labels: Milestone-Release1.0

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by morris.bob on 22 Oct 2013 at 1:58

• Added labels: Type-Defect