On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Eric Miller wrote:
> > dc:rights. I agree that "Information about rights held in and over the
> > resource" is pretty vague, but it does seem a stretch to say that an
> > Organization _is_ "Information about rights held in and over the
> > resource".
>
> Hmm... now I'm a bit confused with which problem we're discussing. :)
>
> I thought the argument was with the interpretation / use of dc:rights.
> If so, I agree and a better solution (which I alluded to in previous
> message) might be to introduce and use a new term 'rightsHolder' whose
> value is a resource (e.g. agent). Further, defining this as a
> refinement of dc:rights makes sense to me.
But rightsHolder isn't a refinement of dc:rights! (It's part of a
structured value that might, taken as a whole, make up a value for
dc:rights).
Let's say that we create a new property called dcterms:rightsholder and
let's say that we define it to be a refinement of dc:rights, then
<dcterms:rightsHolder>W3C</dcterms:rightsHolder>
dumbs-down to
<dc:rights>W3C</dc:rights>
Pete and I are arguing that the name of an organisation (on its own) is
not a valid value for dc:rights. Why? Because the triple
resource dc:rights W3C
says nothing meaningful. The string "W3C" is not "information about
rights held in and over the resource".
So, the dumbed-down statement above is broken. Therefore the first
statement must also be broken.
> Even better would be to leverage DCMI's agent / actors work as the
> value for this property but this part of the discussion is perhaps
> better left to the agents list.
Not really... because the value of dc:rights is not an agent!
> The other issue you raise (which also a serious one) is with respect to
> the value space of the dc:rights property. More specifically weather
> the value is a literal or a resource. This problem certainly isn't
> isolated to dc:rights and is an issue for all DC elements.
Pete's point about PRISM was that they don't only use the name of an agent
(on it's own) as a value for dc:rights. They combine the name of agent
with some other rights information into a 'structured value' for
dc:rights.
What we need for dc:rights is a machine-readable way of saying
Copyright W3C, 2003
But that is much more than simply saying "W3C". We could do this, say, as
follows (though I don't suggest that we invent this ourselves):
<typeOfIPR>copyright</typeofIPR>
<rightsHolder>W3C</rightsHolder>
<year>2003</year>
Presumably, this is the kind of thing METS and various others are working
on.
In terms of the abstract model I sent yesterday, this would be treated as
'related metadata' - i.e. metadata about the abstract 'rights' resource
that is related to the resource being described by the DC record.
Andy
--
Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell +44 1225 383933
Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
|