Adding to Jason's list, a couple of maybe-relevant pointers I've seen passing by while working on :
- RDA vocabularies have some person-related properties, especially in group 2 
- the German national library have coined their own extension for persons, a sort of application profile of other existing vocabularies (Gemeinsame NormDatei (GND) vocabulary, see )
- of course you may want to see what's happening at viaf.org and the person authorities published at the French national library 
But I'm not sure whether there are very detailed frameworks for names in these...
PS: Europeana may register to your list. We've got quite some WWI-related stuff, too.
> Hi Rob,
> Good to hear of your work in this area. We've currently been working on exposing the WWI data concerning New Zealand personnel, and have a rich dataset containing the details of around 110,000 New Zealand personnel that embarked to take part in WWI.
> This dataset has been published online in a non-linked-data format (e.g. http://muse.aucklandmuseum.com/databases/cenotaph/35181.detail) however we're now doing the work to allow the data contained in this dataset to be queried using a SPARQL end-point (though we're still a few weeks from being able to make this publicly available).
> Regarding your question about mark-up and representation of personal names (or Authority Control, as it is termed in the world of libraries and archives), there are a number of standards out there which are of some use in this area, but perhaps the most useful are:
> 1. Metadata Authority Description Schema (MADS): http://www.loc.gov/standards/mads/
> Maintained by the Library of Congress and now available in RDF, this standard has proven a little problematic in that it doesn't model all the elements and attributes that you would ideally want, and is perhaps a little too-closely focused on the needs of the library sector.
> 2. Encoded Archival Context - Corporate Bodies, Persons, and Families (EAC-CPF): http://eac.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/
> This standard is very promising, and tries I think to provide an alternative to some of the limitations of MADS, and has been adopted by the National Library of Australia for their People Australia project (https://wiki.nla.gov.au/display/peau/Home;jsessionid=1antlq1xi5x2g19hvtt1hs450h)
> 3. Entity Authority Toolset (EATS): http://code.google.com/p/eats/
> This has the advantage of being both a conceptual model and also an implementation (based on the Django framework), and is geared towards allowing authority control of any entity -- not only people and organizations, but other that you might want to control, e.g. ships, events, etc.
> It's only real downside is that the community behind it is rather small, and although well thought-out, it doesn't have significant institutional backing, unlike the others above.
> I'd suggest examining the three above systems -- they are more involved than FOAF, but that means that they also allow for the capture of richer data and relationships.
> At this stage, for the work we're doing with the WWI Cenotaph data we aren't using an authority control system, though it will become a consideration a we begin to link out to other collections.
> Jason Darwin
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Rob Warren <muninn....@gmail.com <mailto:muninn....@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi there,
> We're hitting a critical mass of people working on linked open data
> approaches to the first world war. A few of us would like to get a
> conversation going to swap ideas and encourage cross linking of our
> data-sets. A mailman mailing list has been created at ww1-
ww1-lod mailing list