David Bearman wrote:
>
> The relations we have defined are all independent of
> intellectual property and it would be extremely dangerous
> to assume that the rights to and one object were shared
> with that of a prior version, mechanical transformation,
> creative production, etc. For that reason alone,
> I'd be very uncomfortable with positioning either Source
> or Relation under the rubric Intellectual
> Property, even if its just collation of convenience.
OK - on reflection again I agree. The lists below are
probably cleanest they can get. I was getting ambushed
a bit by the possibilities rather than the definites.
Content IP Instantiation
3.1 Title 3.8 Creator 3.12 Identifier
3.2 Subject 3.9 Contributor 3.13 Format
3.3 Description 3.10 Publisher 3.14 Type
3.4 Coverage 3.11 Rights 3.15 Date
3.5 Relation
3.6 Source
3.7 Language
Best Simon
--
__________________________________________________
Dr Simon Cox - Australian Geodynamics Cooperative Research Centre
CSIRO Exploration & Mining, PO Box 437, Nedlands, WA 6009 Australia
T: +61 8 9389 8421 F: +61 8 9389 1906 [log in to unmask]
http://www.ned.dem.csiro.au/SimonCox/
|