* Eric Scheid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-23 15:48+1000] > > On 23/5/05 3:22 PM, "A. Pagaltzis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Antone Roundy suggests: > > +1 make atom:author plural > > +1 keep atom:contributor > > punt bylines to an extension > > > > To me that sounds like the simplest thing that can possibly work, > > and looks like it hits the 80/20 mark. It also requires the least > > squabbling over its implementation. And Robert has expressed that > > he is fine with the proposal in that thread. > > > > Again, +1 to Antonešs suggestion. > > +1,+1, and +1 from me too.
+1, +1, +.5 from me BTW, and aside re Dublin Core semantics, DC allows all DC terms to be repeated, including 'creator'; the definition is given in http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/ "An entity primarily responsible for making the content of the resource." with the notes "Examples of a Creator include a person, an organisation, or a service. Typically, the name of a Creator should be used to indicate the entity.". It says 'an entity' rather than 'the entity'. 'Primarily' might suggest one rather than many, but the notion of multiple entities being 'jointly first' in their responsibility for making the content seems to sneak us out of that one. Dublin Core has a group on Agents, see http://dublincore.org/groups/agents/ ...at the last Dublin Core Advisory Board meeting I said I'd try to get FOAF measured up against their functional requirements doc, http://rdfweb.org/pipermail/rdfweb-dev/2004-October/013820.html ...probably time to revisit that discussion. Also worth noting in that regard is that there are different idioms for deploying dc:creator (sometimes as a relationship to a string, sometimes as a relationship to an Agent of some kind) in RDF; http://danbri.org/words/?p=63 was an experiment in making explicit rules for mapping between them. Dan > > Išve expressed an affinity for the idea of putting atom:category > > in atom:contributor, but I see a lot of potential delay in that > > and no pressing need for it. > > seeing as that proposal was my idea, and despite no technical objections to > it, I'm happy to withdraw it just so atom:author can get through the process > hoops. > > e. >
