Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-metadata - Re: Creative Commons vs. Dublin Core

cc-metadata AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work <cc-metadata AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Creative Commons vs. Dublin Core
  • Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 19:08:44 -0800

Evan Prodromou wrote:
ML> The format is identical -- RDF/XML, and CC uses many DC
ML> properties [...].

No, it's not identical. It's close, but not quite. A couple of things:

Ok, I was trying to be sneaky by implying that since they both use RDF/XML, they use same format. You're correct about the differences below.

* The metadata for a work in DC is an rdf:Description; in CC, it's
a Work.
* The CC metadata has a Licence element; in DC, I believe this
would just be another rdf:Description.

cc:Work and cc:License allow for more precise semantics than rdf:Description. See <http://web.resource.org/cc/schema.rdf> where the various license characteristic properties are defined to have a domain of License.

Another difference/addition is that of cc:license. Presumably CC could've used dc:rights rather than subclassing it.

cc:Agent is another addition, and one I'm not satisfied with, which is why I've mentioned adopting foaf:Agent in the past -- I'm still planning to do that, though I'm kind of waiting to see what the DC Agents working group comes up with (there's been a recent requirements document, to which a few people responded "hey, look at FOAF", including me privately).

I welcome commentary on any of the above, though of course widely deployed stuff is much less likely to change.

--
Mike Linksvayer
http://creativecommons.org/learn/aboutus/people#21




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page