Regarding FOAF and "Testing status", I thought this blog from awhile back rang true:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:41 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] re-using existing properties (was
> http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-authority/ and the
> "lightweight abstraction layer")
> Nate, what this says to me is that we need to work more collaboratively
> with others. This is what I hoped would come out of the NISO Bib
> Framework meeting (but unfortunately did not). I've been very
> frustrated with foaf - so much potential, and yet so un-realized. And
> it isn't being very actively developed anymore. So we can either roll
> our own, OR try to find a way to collaborate on standards for the Web,
> not standards for the library community only.
> If we were, for example, a community of flat worm neuron researchers,
> it might make sense to develop our own ontology with little direct
> interaction with that of others. But the data that libraries will
> create is by definition not exclusive to the library use case -- our
> metadata describes people, intellectual resources, places, events, time
> These are about as close to universal concepts as you'll get. There's
> probably nothing in our data that shouldn't be linking to someone
> else's information somewhere.
> It makes me cringe a bit when I hear it, but it has been suggested that
> libraries are the logical organizations to take on the archiving and
> perhaps even maintenance of key ontologies. I know we don't have the
> funding for that and I am reminded of the poster that read: "What if
> schools were fully funded and the military had to hold a bake sale to
> buy an airplane?"
> So I agree, Nate, with your assessment -- that we can't risk using
> ontologies that can change arbitrarily. But we could potentially become
> partners in those ontologies, just as libraries from different
> countries have become partners in MARC21 and BIBFRAME. Dividing the
> world at libraries/not-libraries is the problem. Well, the crux of the
> problem is that we'd have to hold a bake sale to get the $$ and
> staffing to be participants, and even that wouldn't cover it.
> On 5/23/13 8:39 AM, Trail, Nate wrote:
> > If you adopt someone else's terms, you are stuck with their
> definitions, and if they decide to change them, you have to revisit
> your decision: a constant maintenance headache.
> > The foaf vocab is in Testing status, version 0.98. Are they going to
> change it before it comes out? Who knows? Will they add something
> better like foaf:sortName that is more like a traditional library
> > Just coming up with a list of all the possible terms out there and
> fighting over whether they are close enough to use for each term we
> have will be a major use of time.
> > On DC, people you might not be for it, but if we opened the BF vocab
> up, there might be a lot of clamor for it; it's so simple and it's all
> over the place!
> > Nate
> > PS I had a good laugh about the Unicode and ISO 639 "roll our own
> comment". I'm working right now on developing a computer that uses 2s
> and 3s instead of 1s and 0s.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: stuart yeates [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 5:31 PM
> > To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> > Cc: Trail, Nate
> > Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] re-using existing properties (was
> > http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-authority/ and the
> > "lightweight abstraction layer")
> > On 23/05/13 05:25, Trail, Nate wrote:
> >> I think when you start reusing existing properties, you're relying
> >> them being around for the long haul, and requiring systems that
> >> consume them to be aware of all the multiple namespaces.
> > The "syntactic sugar" option used by
> madsrdf:hasCloseExternalAuthority does not introduce a new namespace
> from the users' point of view. The syntactic sugar can even be kept in
> a separate RDF file from the definition of the bibframe properties,
> making it second class and invisible to everyone who doesn't want it.
> > > In all cases, I can't
> > > see us (the library community) agreeing that the way foaf or dc
> (or > whatever) uses a term really matches what we're talking about.
> > Following that arguement we should also walk away from ISO 639, ISO
> 3166, RFC 3986, Unicode and so forth. None of them are perfect from a
> library point of view but all of the are better than rolling our own.
> > [For the record I'm not suggestion using dc / Dublincore.]
> > cheers
> > stuart
> > --
> > Stuart Yeates
> > Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet