Subject: posted PaceAuthorContributor

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 12:56:23 -0400

http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceAuthorContributor

== Abstract ==

Allow multiple authors. 

== Status ==

Open

== Rationale ==

The current draft only allows one atom:author per entry, meaning either:
- All authors of a document have to be shoehorned into that atom:author element
- One author has to be chosen as primary and the rest are "contributors"

== Notes ==

Neither bylines nor inheritance are dealt with by this Pace.

== Proposal ==

In 4.1.1, replace:
   o  atom:feed elements MUST contain exactly one atom:author element,
      UNLESS all of the atom:feed element's child atom:entry elements
      contain an atom:author element.

with:
   o  atom:feed elements MUST contain one or more atom:author elements,
      UNLESS all of the atom:feed element's child atom:entry elements
      contain at least one atom:author element.
 
Remove:
   o  atom:feed elements MUST NOT contain more than one atom:author
      element.

In 4.1.2, replace:
   o  atom:entry elements MUST contain exactly one atom:author element,
      unless the atom:entry contains an atom:source element which
      contains an atom:author element, or, in an Atom Feed Document, the
      atom:feed element contains an atom:author element itself.

With:

   o  atom:entry elements MUST contain one or more atom:author elements,
      unless the atom:entry contains an atom:source element which
      contains an atom:author element, or, in an Atom Feed Document, the
      atom:feed element contains an atom:author element itself.

Remove:
   o  atom:entry elements MUST NOT contain more than one atom:author
      element.

== Impacts ==

----

CategoryProposals

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 10:20:35 -0700

> http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceAuthorContributor

For those whose enquiring minds want to know, the difference between  
Graham's version and Robert's version is
that Graham's version contains:
=========================

In section 4.2.3, append to:

The "atom:contributor" element is a Person construct that indicates a
person or other entity who contributed to the entry or feed.
The text:

and who is not also a named author.
==========================

Otherwise, they are pretty well identical as far as I can tell.

I mildly prefer Robert's version, this feels like trying to legislate  
morality. --Tim

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 18:38:47 +0100

On 23 May 2005, at 6:20 pm, Tim Bray wrote:

>  this feels like trying to legislate morality. --Tim

If I want to give someone full credit for an entry, do I:
a) Just credit them as an author?
b) Or do I need to credit them as an author and a contributor?

If (a) is enough, what happens when someone does (b)? Or if the  
answer is (b), does someone else doing (a) imply that that author  
contributed nothing? Implementers need to know this stuff.

Graham

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 10:52:47 -0700

> b) Or do I need to credit them as an author and a contributor?

I suspect most people would guess right, and a culture of doing the  
right thing would develop.  If you're worried, one good way to  
address the issue would be to say that "the semantics of this element  
are based on the Dublin Core's [dc:creator]", DC is pretty clear as I  
recall.  I've been thinking that would be a good idea anyhow.  -Tim

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 19:07:06 +0100

On 23 May 2005, at 6:52 pm, Tim Bray wrote:

> right thing would develop.

Dave, impersonating Tim like this is not on.

Graham

---

From: Walter Underwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 11:16:50 -0700

--On May 23, 2005 10:52:47 AM -0700 Tim Bray <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> If you're worried, one good way to  address the issue would be to say that
> "the semantics of this element are based on the Dublin Core's [dc:creator]",
> DC is pretty clear as I  recall.  I've been thinking that would be a good idea
> anyhow.

Let's call it atom:creator, then, and actually use the DC definition.

Not because DC is better, but because it makes the metadata crosswalks
(interoperability) work smoothly.

wunder
--
Walter Underwood
Principal Architect, Verity

---

From: Dan Brickley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 14:44:19 -0400

* Walter Underwood <[email-masked]> [2005-05-23 11:16-0700]
> Let's call it atom:creator, then, and actually use the DC definition.

+1

> (interoperability) work smoothly.

FWI the original DC had "Author: The person(s) primarily responsible for
the intellectual content of the object" (see 
http://dublincore.org/workshops/dc1/report.shtml first workshop report).
After the 3rd workshop (on DC and images, in 1996) this became
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january97/oclc/01weibel.html#table
	AUTHOR OR CREATOR
	The person(s) or organization(s) primarily responsible for the
	intellectual content of the resource.

What we have today is http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#H2
"An entity primarily responsible for making the content of the
resource." (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.)

Aside- the DCMI Localization and Internationalization Working Group,
http://dublincore.org/groups/languages/   have been busy getting
DC definitions translated into other languages. See the WG homepage
for links. I realise it is just one part of Atom, but it is handy 
at least to have had that part of the translation effort done already.

Calling it atom:creator makes sense to me; DC changed to 
use 'creator' rather than 'author' to accomodate digital image use 
cases. These also seem appealing w.r.t. Atom; there are a *lot* more 
digital images being shared and described now than there were back 
in 1996 when DC made the change.

Dan

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 23:14:29 +0100

> a service. Typically, the name of a Creator should be used to indicate

The WG consensus in supporting multiple atom:authors seems to be  
against having a singular creator, so -1 on this change.

Graham

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 18:26:55 -0400

> against having a singular creator, so -1 on this change.

Dan tells us you can have multiple dc:creators. I didn't know that,
but I'd be happy to use Dublin Core if we possibly can.

Robert Sayre

---

From: Dan Brickley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 19:25:43 -0400

* Robert Sayre <[email-masked]> [2005-05-23 18:26-0400]
> but I'd be happy to use Dublin Core if we possibly can.

Yep, all the main DC terms are considered optional and repeatable.

Dan