discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work

[Aaron Swartz <me AT aaronsw.com>]

Shelley Powers wrote:
> Though not as unique as a dummy identifier such as a URI, a name is 
> how most
> things are identified.

Certainly, but that does not excuse us from distinguishing between the 
name and the thing it identifies.

_:x dc:creator "John Smith" .

says the creator is the string "John Smith"

_:x dc:creator _:y .
_:y dc:title "John Smith" .

says the creator is something named "John Smith".

In both cases, a name is how things are identified, but in the second, 
the name is clearly distinguished from the thing itself.

Picking either form alone would be satisfactory for computers, but 
picking both leads to confusion. I picked the second because that is 
how I've seen dc:creator used in most instances (most notably 
MusicBrainz, which defines 34265 artists in this way), because that is 
what you would guess from the term's definition, because it is 
dc:creator and not dc:creatorName, because the second makes providing 
more information about creators easy, and because my friends at the W3C 
would be upset if I didn't.

> I don't think this has ever been a case of confusing names with the 
> actual
> thing.

There are several instances of this (called "use/mention confusion") in 
the original M&S specs.


> If we annotate the text within the web page -- limiting the
> text to only such and such content, as the CC recommended, this 
> annotation
> is _not_ picked up in the license within the RDF/XML.

True.

> Now, if people start using only the license to determine if the data 
> within
> a RSS feed can be re-published, and the RSS feed contains links to 
> images,
> they may assume they can also duplicate the images.

That would be silly. If a CC-licensed document linked to a copy of 
RealPlayer, would you assume that RealPlayer was licensed also?

> For instance, I don't want my photos used within 'racist' content. So 
> I might add a prohibition against 'racist use'. Simple thing to modify 
> the RDF/XML, but what will this do to the validity of the license?

Obviously you'll need a new license with this prohibition. The license 
characteristics are descriptive.
--
Aaron Swartz [http://www.aaronsw.com]

For an introduction to the subject of use/mention issues, I recommend 
_Alice in Wonderland_:
"""
`The name of the song is called "Haddocks' Eyes."'

`Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?' Alice said, trying to feel 
interested.

`No, you don't understand,' the Knight said, looking a little vexed. 
`That's what the name is called. The name really is "The Aged Aged 
Man."'

`Then I ought to have said "That's what the song is called"?' Alice 
corrected herself.

`No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The song is called "Ways 
and Means": but that's only what it's called, you know!'

`Well, what is the song, then?' said Alice, who was by this time 
completely bewildered.

`I was coming to that,' the Knight said. `The song really is "A-sitting 
On A Gate": and the tune's my own invention.'
"""