Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-metadata - Re: questions on the RDF/XML

cc-metadata AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Aaron Swartz <me AT aaronsw.com>
  • To: metadata AT creativecommons.org
  • Cc: "Shelley Powers" <shelleyp AT burningbird.net>
  • Subject: Re: questions on the RDF/XML
  • Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 12:16:14 -0600

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.'
"""





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page