I think that the aspect of what I was saying here that has been missed, is
that the dc:creator may be the entity (legally or otherwise) responsible for
the creation of the resource, even though the content was all actually
generated by (other) contributors.
The UK e-Government Metadata Standard (which is intended to be an extension
of dc) takes this view.
Ann W.
-----Original Message-----
From: DCMI Architecture Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Andy Powell
Sent: 27 September 2002 15:47
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: multiply affiliated refinements
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Ann M Wrightson wrote:
> For example, in designing the metadata for UK Govt XML schemas, we had a
> problem deciding what to do about a subcontractor who had actually created
> the content, vs the commissioning owner who was ultimately responsible.
The
> decision made was to make the commissioning owner the creator, and use
> dc:contributor for the subcontractor, with the role played reflected in
the
> metadata value. See the following extracts from the v1.0 document:
>
> Examples
> For an XML schema developed using the GovTalk process, through the
> Government Schema Group:
> CONTRIBUTOR: Government Schema Group
> For an XML schema developed by a subcontractor for a Government
> organization:
> CONTRIBUTOR: developed by alphaXML Ltd http://www.alphaxml.com
>
> Where a schema is developed by a subcontractor or external consultant for
a
> Government organization, then the Government organization is considered to
> be the creator, and the subcontractor a contributor (see above)
> Where the schema is developed using the UK GovTalkT collaborative process,
> then the Creator is UK GovTalk, and substantial contributors may be
> recognized as described above.
> Where the schema is developed within a Government organization, then the
> name of the organization (or some relevant subunit) appears.
Perhaps I don't understand what you are suggesting here? Nothing I've
said would prevent you from using dc:creator and dc:contributor in the way
you describe above. I'm simply observing that anyone that you choose to
list as being a dc:creator is 'by definition' also a dc:contributor (based
on the DCMI element definitions).
Also note that if you are suggesting that the value of dc:contributor
should contain both the name of the contributor and the role they played,
e.g.
<dc:contributor>
developed by alphaXML Ltd
http://www.alphaxml.com
</dc:contributor>
as you appear to indicate above, then that seems to me to be a little
questionable. dc:contributor is defined as 'An entity responsible for
making contributions to the content of the resource.'. That definition
does not include space for an indication of what role the entity played.
Apologies if I have mis-interpretted your message above?
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/
|