Add comments for dct:creator

[tombaker]

See range_creator. See also Issue #24 ("Clarify definition of dct:creator").

Add comments for http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator:

Typically the name of the Creator should be used to indicate the entity.

Creators should be listed separately, preferably in the same order that
they appear in the publication. Personal names should be listed surname or
family name first, followed by forename or given name.  When in doubt, give
the name as it appears, and do not invert.

EXAMPLES:  Shakespeare, William
           Hubble telescope.
           Verohallinto. Suomi

Note:

• "creator" has a range of dct:Agent.

• These would be "NOTE 1 to entry:" and "NOTE 2 to entry:".

• The property dc:creator already
  has the almost identical comment (note "a" changed to "the"):

  Typically the name of a Creator should be used to indicate the entity.

[sarahartmann]

Proposal:

"Recommended practice is to refer to the creator with an URI.
If no such URI is available, it is acceptable to refer to the creator
with a literal, such as a name or label of the creator which indicates the entity. Literals for personal names should be listed surname or family name first, followed by forename or given name. When in doubt, give
the name as it appears, and do not invert."

remarks:

• reference to an "order" was deleted because there can't be an order when using separate elements
• used "URI" instead of "non-literal value" because we believe that many users are not very familiar with the term "non-literal-value"

[sarahartmann]

depending on #42

[juhahakala]

I have used Sarah's proposal as the Note in the ISO draft. I agree that it is better to use "URI" than "non-literal value".

Using just URI will become a problem if and when the URI "dies" or if it no longer resolved to the right resource so that the name cannot be extracted using the URI. Therefore my preference would be "Recommended practice is to refer to the creator with a name and URI".

[kcoyle]

@juhahakala I don't think it can be both - that makes parsing the value for processing (including display) very difficult. Schemas like BIBFRAME have separate properties for each, but I don't think we want to go there with DC. So there has to be one preferred and one "fall-back" value option, IMO.

[tombaker]

Juha has used Sarah's proposal (without the suggestion that both URI and literal be used):

Recommended practice is to refer to the creator with an URI.
If no such URI is available, it is acceptable to refer to the creator
with a literal, such as a name or label of the creator which indicates 
the entity. Literals for personal names should be listed surname or 
family name first, followed by forename or given name. When in 
doubt, give the name as it appears, and do not invert.

This is in line with decisions on other issues. Closing.

[jneubert]

@tombaker, all: I reopen the issue here. We did not made a descision on a clearly stated proposal according to the process defined in https://github.com/dcmi/usage/blob/master/documents/process/index.md#decisions. Additionally, it is not clear if the ISO version or the DCMI version will include examples, and which ones.

I've suggested to discuss the handling of cases where non-literal values are not available in #42 , because this affects not only dct:creator, but also to dct:contributor and others.

In #42 , I objected to recommending literals, and instead proposed the use of dcelements for literals.

We did not make a descision on issue #42 either - so I think it's still open.

[tombaker]

The current ISO draft has the following comment for dct:creator:

Recommended practice is to refer to the creator with an URI.  If no
such URI is available, it is acceptable to refer to the creator with a
literal, such as a name or label of the creator which indicates the
entity. Literals for personal names should be listed surname or family
name first, followed by forename or given name. When in doubt, give the
name as it appears, and do not invert.

Please comment/vote, bearing in mind Joachim's preference not to encourage
the use of literals with dct:creator, but rather to point users with literals to
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator.

[kcoyle]

To me the purpose of this is to identify the creator. It shouldn't include "cataloging rules" (e.g. inversion of name or not) - especially if those rules contradict themselves ("When in doubt ..."). It should be sufficient to say:

This property is used to identify the creator using a standard identifier or a name.

Someplace we might want to say that identifiers should be unique within a given context to avoid ambiguity.

[jneubert]

Object to voting on this issue before we've found a solution to #42

[jneubert]

+1 to Karens point to not include "cataloging rules". In the case of personal names, the suggested rule would make sense for "western" naming systems only.

[tombaker]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 04:13:30PM -0700, kcoyle wrote: To me the purpose of this is to identify the creator. It shouldn't include "cataloging rules" (e.g. inversion of name or not) - especially if those rules contradict themselves ("When in doubt ..."). It should be sufficient to say: This property is used to identify the creator using a standard identifier or a name. Someplace we might want to say that identifiers should be unique within a given context to avoid ambiguity.

+1

…

-- Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>

[kaiec]

Based on our approved note from rightsHolder:

Note 1 to entry: Recommended practice is to refer to the creator
with a URI. If this is not possible or feasible, a literal value that
identifies the creator may be provided.

[tombaker]

APPROVED

Note 1 to entry: Recommended practice is to identify the creator
with a URI. If this is not possible or feasible, a literal value that
identifies the creator may be provided.