AgentsVocabularyDiscussion
→ Information about submission as TDWG standard
→ MRTG Wiki Homepage
→ Current Schema Draft. This version is under internal review as part of the submission to TDWG.
→ Audubon Core Non normative document
→ MRTG Development History
→ MRTG Meeting Notes
→ MRTG Best Practices
→ XML Schema representation of Audubon Core
→ RDF representation of Audubon Core
→ MediaWiki Help
Contents |
1 Original from MRTG_Schema_v0.8#Agents_Vocabulary
This was the commentary moved from MRTG_Schema_v0.8#Agents_Vocabulary. There seem to be some inherent modeling conflict between describing Agent as a complex object (e.g. with contact information) and the modeling done in dcterm where it overlaps with MRTG. I will discuss that below.
The following fields are used to describe actors in particular roles. The ISO North American Profile (NAP) Metadata standard (http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/incits-l1-standards-projects/NAP-Metadata/napMetadataProfileV101.pdf) provides guidelines for representing people and organizations who are responsible for resources in various roles. Some of those roles, creator and provider, are of specific interest for MRTG resources. Additional actors may be included as other associated actors.
Note G. Hagedorn: I believe the properties of the agent structure should follow closely those defined for XMP/IPTC, as follows:
- IPTC CORE 1.1: Contact Information Details structure, using Iptc4xmpCore:ContactInfoDetails [1]
- IPTC CORE 1.1: Address {contact info detail}, using Iptc4xmpCore:(Contact Info detail:) Address [1]
- IPTC CORE 1.1: City {contact info detail}, using Iptc4xmpCore:(Contact Info detail:) CiAdrCity [1]
- IPTC CORE 1.1: Country {contact info detail}, using Iptc4xmpCore:(Contact Info detail:) CiAdrCtry [1]
- IPTC CORE 1.1: Email address(es) {contact info detail}, using Iptc4xmpCore:(Contact Info detail:) CiEmailWork [1]
- IPTC CORE 1.1: Phone number(s) {contact info detail}, using Iptc4xmpCore:(Contact Info detail:) CiTelWork [1]
- IPTC CORE 1.1: Postal Code {contact info detail}, using Iptc4xmpCore:(Contact Info detail:) CiAdrPcode [1]
- IPTC CORE 1.1: State/Province {contact info detail}, using Iptc4xmpCore:(Contact Info detail:) CiAdrRegion [1]
- IPTC CORE 1.1: Web URL(s) {contact info detail}, using Iptc4xmpCore:(Contact Info detail:) CiUrlWork [1]
--GregorHagedorn 00:30, 2 March 2009 (CET)
There is already a ContactDetails in the TDWG LSID Vocs. http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/ContactDetails#ContactDetails, and that is what the Collection proposal uses. I cannot see an advantage to the IPTC vocabulary, especially since Collection uses the TDWG vocabulary. --BobMorris 03:13, 2 March 2009 (CET)
- fyi, the above matches very closely the MODs details for a name/role combination. We haven't looked at the Contact Details in the TDWG LSID yet. --AnnetteOlson 23:04, 6 March 2009 (CET)
- Why xmp? The argument is programmers against users: programmers write their own software and can freely use whether to use their own vocabulary or a standard one. I am afraid you are very much a programmer, Bob! However, as a user I am dependend on software support. The xmp vocabularies are used in media managegemnt software, and I believe their use is very likely to spread. The above fields are already embedded in probably millions of images. TDWG uses the vcard vocabulary, and where this matches the xmp vocabulary I have no issue if GBIF internally prefers TDWG vocabularies. --GregorHagedorn 09:13, 10 March 2009 (CET)
2 Modeling Conflicts
Coming soon --BobMorris 03:24, 9 September 2009 (CEST)
