Versioning. Sent from my Apple-branded FBI tracking device On 23. mai 2013, at 17.39, "Trail, Nate" <[log in to unmask]> 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 > listing? > > 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 on >> 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/ >