Dear All,
Comments on the suggested terms 'license' and 'rightsHolder'.
1. License
I'm a bit doubtful about using a name for a term that has a diferrent
spelling in UK and US. In English-English 'license' is a verb which
isn't the intention of this term nor does it fit with DC grammar. The
noun is 'licence'. I realise that this is just a token but wonder if it
will give rise to confusion, mis-spelling and consequent
mismatching.
Is there another name that could be used? certificate? authority?
warrant? right? - proabably that would cause even more confusion :)
2. rightsHolder
I'm wondering if this really should be a 'top-level' term. It doesn't feel
right as such and I suspect could cause future problems.
Could rightsHolder be a sub-property of publisher? Certainly the
rightsHolder will be allowing the resource to be published.
There seem to be other terms surfacing that are also loosely
contributors in some way to a resource, but cannot be sub-
properties of contributor because that is defined as contributing to
the *content* of the resource. The Collections Working Group has
'owner'. I did wonder if rightsHolder and owner were the same but
proabably not. Rights last for a fixed length of time whereas you
could own something old.
Perhaps what is needed is a new top-level term like
associatedParty. Then rightsHolder, owner, etc. could be sub-
properties of that.
Ann
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Apps. Senior Analyst - Research & Development, MIMAS,
University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 6039 Fax: +44 (0) 0161 275 6040
Email: [log in to unmask] WWW: http://epub.mimas.ac.uk/ann.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
