 |
 |
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/