I agree with Rebecca's analysis. While the date is _associated_ with issues
of intellectual property rights, it is nonetheless a refinement of date.
Stuart
==========================================
Stuart A. Sutton, Associate Professor
Interim Chair, Masters of Library and Information Science
The Information School of the University of Washington
Suite 370, Mary Gates Hall, Box 352840
Seattle, WA 98195-2840
Fax: +1 (206) 616-3152
http://www.ischool.washington.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Rebecca S. Guenther [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 1:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject:
Doesn't qualifying Rights with a Date element imply the approval of an
element refinement Date for Rights in the proposed RDF statement? I didn't
think this was possible using DC terms as they have been defined.
As for Roland's question, what was intended was the date that copyright
protection was registered, i.e. the form of intellectual property rights
protection called copyright. I suppose this term is used in the U.S.-- I'm
not sure what the equivalent term is in other countries. It is important
because that date determines (according to the specific law) how long the
resource is protected and after a certain amount of time it is in the
public domain. It is certainly associated with rights, but it is a date
that would be processed like any other date.
Rebecca
> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:45:41 +0200
> From: Roland Schwaenzl <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: DC-Libraries Working Group Proposal: Copyright qualifier for
Date
> element
>
> Chris wrote
>
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > In a case like the proposed Copyright qualifier for Date element [1]
> > where it is possible to effectively qualify Rights with a date using RDF
> > without a new refinement, *something like* this:
> >
> > <dc:rights>
> > <rdf:value xml:lang="en">
> > Copyright 2002 FooBar Ltd.
> > </rdf:value>
> > <dc:date>
> > <dcterms:W3CDTF>
> > <rdf:value>2002-04-24T12:15:37Z</rdf:value>
> > </dcterms:W3CDTF>
> > </dc:date>
> > </dc:rights>
> >
> > Should this way of doing it be mentioned as an equivalent way of doing
> > it or should it be discouraged or is it best not mentioned since it
> > can't be doing using (X)HTML or XML DC metadata? Just a thought...
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > [1] http://www.loc.gov/marc/dc/copyright-date_prop.html
> >
>
> Hmmm...some problem with the RDF (you use dc:rights as a typed node?! or
do you assume parseType="resource"?)
>
> Think your argument is, that the date in question should be viewed as
> part of a rights statement.
>
> Looking at the proposal the intended semantics of "copyright" isn't
> quite clear to me - so it's hard to talk about.
>
> A legally binding statement can only be claimed by some legal entity
> [Person/Organization] (In Chris case: FooBar Ltd.) Maybe there is a
> specific legal system assumed implicitly, in which such statements are
> necessary and the circumstances are obvious?
>
> Does the DC-Library group address a specific transaction event
> (registration of copyright at some specific organization?) with the
> rights management for a resource?
>
> Some clarification by dc-lib?
>
> Cheers,
> rs
>
|