 |
 |
[Apologies for snipping, but I think these two examples illustrate the core of the argument quite nicely] Eric said: > Take the example from http://web.resource.org/rss/1.0/modules/dc/ > > <dc:rights>Copyright C 2000 O'Reilly & Associates, > Inc.</dc:rights> > > one may argue this is a "correct" or "incorrect" usage but > this example > reflects the kinds of information thats associated with the > dc:rights > element in many examples I see on daily basis. > > To me (at least) there is not too far of a stretch to represent the > unstructured data in the above example in a more explicitly > structured > way. > > <dc:rights> > <Organization> > <name> O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.</name> > </Organization> > </dc:rights> I think the distinction between these two examples is that - in the former the value of the dc:rights property is a statement (yes, only an unstructured, human-readable statement but a statement all the same) that "the copyright in/over the current resource is held by O'Reilly Associates". The name of an organisation is part of that human-readable statement but it's not the only part. - in the latter the value of the dc:rights property is a resource of type "....#Organization". That's not the same as the first example - here, the value is the Organization. I tend to agree with Andy (in fact I came across the CC usage for the first time yesterday and I asked Andy about it, only to find that he had already raised exactly the same question a few months back): the latter seems intuitively, well, a bit odd to me given the current definition of 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". Not sure this is relevant but FWIW I had a quick look at PRISM earlier on today http://www.prismstandard.org/spec1.2g.pdf and it seems to me their use of dc:rights is rather closer to what I might have expected. They do include a prism:rightsAgent property but that is used - either as a property of the primary resource (i.e. the same resource as has the dc:rights property) (see their examples 11 and 13) - or as a property of a resource that is itself the value of dc:rights - I think! - this isn't clear as their spec describes things very much from the perspective of the XML tree rather than the graph, and there isn't an explicit example of this, but I think the last line of the "Occurs In" paragraph in 5.3.38 means a use something like: <rdf:Description> <dc:title>My resource</dc:title> <dc:rights rdf:parseType="Resource"> <prism:rightsAgent>Someone</prism:rightsAgent> [...other properties of the "rights statement"...] </dc:rights> </rdf:Description> Anyway, in either case PRISM certainly seems to make an effort to avoid saying that the value of dc:rights is an Organisation, and that seems to me more in keeping with the deployments I've seen of dc:rights with an unstructured literal value - and rather at odds with the CC usage? Cheers Pete ------- Pete Johnston Interoperability Research Officer UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK tel: +44 (0)1225 383619 fax: +44 (0)1225 386838 mailto:[log in to unmask] http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/p.johnston/