Sorry, to clarify:

> 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.

This is why we have versioning in the namespaces.

> 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?

Yes, the version you'd be using is

> 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.

I suggest that LoC not do this as it has been done before by the British Library and many others.

> 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!

You'd probably want to version this data too

> 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 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

Rurik Thomas Greenall
NTNU University Library | NTNU Universitetsbiblioteket
[log in to unmask]