discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work

["Shelley Powers" <shelleyp AT burningbird.net>]

>
> 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.
>

Still think you're adding complexity where it's not needed. If the world
wasn't used to our representation as strings, (in signatures on checkes,
within database systems, books, references, and whatever), then it makes
sense that you would say that you're adding the structure because you don't
want there to be confusion.

To the world at large, I don't there is confusion.

> 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.
>

Upset by what? That you used the data structure rather than the literal? Or
that you used creator and didn't try to use creatorName?

BTW -- a whole lot more Movable Type users than MusicBrainz, I betcha now
(would have to get figures) -- which means more people using straight text
than structure. Probably because that's what's demonstrate at Dublin Core,
itself.

I know that this is given PCDATA in the DTD and both are allowable -- but I
still prefer to use what's in the original DC docs as examples, until they
come out and say, "Ooops! Examples were wrong!", and probably tick off a lot
of people who use straight text.

I do agree with both causing confusion -- and you now have both in one page
at my weblog.

> > 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.
>
>

Um, I'm actually talking about 'real world' here -- in databases, books,
what have you. Name is considered an 'identifier' of the thing, made more
precise by adding additional info.

> > 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?
>

But but but -- that's the connotation with RDF/RSS (RSS 1.0). Otherwise, why
put it in the feed? (Refer to discussion on this at the group, and in
comments attached to this weblog posting (
http://weblog.burningbird.net/fires/000766.htm ) by Matt, et al.

> > 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.

True, which means I can't modify the RDF/XML for prohibits without getting
the CC to agree to the new license type.

> --
> 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.'
> """
>


Actually, this is perfect example demonstrating what I'm saying -- you can
get all twistie trying to finitely define the semantics of 'name' until
people's brains hurt. Or one can accept common usage and understanding that
has worked quite well. Well, until it hit RDF and went through the looking
glass.