What are we trying to accomplish with the dc:creator and owner fields? Are we trying to solve a distributed identify problem or simply trying to use the right model for givenName, familyName, emailAddress type information? I believe we should do the latter in the 1st version of the Core spec, but I agree that we may also need to do the former at some point. At this point we have the notion of a user account, but no notion of a "live person identifier" and I think we have to live with that at least for v1.
For simple username information the FOAF fields are sufficient and I believe a foaf:Person resource should be in the Core spec along with a set of person properties. Actually, there are in the draft now. In my opinion the Core spec should define a set of "core properties" and the datatypes for each (e.g. foaf:Person for dc:creator), but that individual specs should be free to override these on a case-by-case basis. - Dave On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Steve K Speicher <[email protected]> wrote: > Thought the core WG should weigh in on this one. Olivier has a fair > amount of experience with this and some good points to consider. > > Comments? > > Thanks, > Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645 > > ----- Forwarded by Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM on 03/05/2010 08:10 AM > ----- > > From: > Olivier Berger <[email protected]> > To: > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: > 03/05/2010 05:43 AM > Subject: > [oslc-cm] foaf:Person vs sioc:User for dc:creator or oslc_cm:owner ? > Sent by: > [email protected] > > > > Hi. > > I've had a look at > http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmResourceDefinitionsV2 and it > seems that foaf:Person is preferred at the moment for describing > reporters/owners of CRs. > > I'm not sure this is the best choice, and would propose to use sioc:User > instead. > > When reading : > "General agreement on foaf:Person is enough as there are not too many > systems that have multiple accounts per user. Can be managed by having > separate person instances (exception, instead of the rule)" > I'm puzzled... > > sioc:User is already there to manage the situation of several accounts > (sioc:Users) of the same physical person (foaf:Person). > > Why chose the least suitable one when there's one more flexible ? ;) > > Is this to avoid dependency on sioc and limit to foaf ? > > foaf:Person seems well suited when dealing with real physical persons, > whereas sioc:User is more about accounts/aliases/nicks of potentially > anonymous personalities of these real people. > > Also, when thinking about automation, I believe dc:creators couls be > robots/apps, where sioc:User may be preferred to foaf:Persons too ;) > > In any case, sioc seems more actively maintained than foaf, IMHO, so it > may be preferred maybe. > > Any comments ? > > Best regards, > > P.S.: I'm in the process of drafting a forge ontology : > https://forge.projet-coclico.org/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/wp2/index.php/Forge_Ontology_Proposal > which should be interoperable with OSLC-CM, hence my recent investigatiosn > of sioc vs foaf. > -- > Olivier BERGER <[email protected]> > http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8 > Ingénieur Recherche - Dept INF > Institut TELECOM, SudParis (http://www.it-sudparis.eu/), Evry (France) > > > _______________________________________________ > Oslc-Cm mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-cm_open-services.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > Oslc-Core mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net >
