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: Ben Hammersley <ben AT benhammersley.com>
  • To: "Shelley Powers" <shelleyp AT burningbird.net>
  • Cc: <metadata AT creativecommons.org>
  • Subject: Re: questions on the RDF/XML
  • Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 20:15:31 +0100

Awoken from my slumber, allow me to barge in.

On Thursday, December 26, 2002, at 07:44 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
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.

This *really* gets on my wick. Say this three times. The example is the spec. The example is the spec. The example is the spec. Either, right now, someone from the Dublin Core team, and someone from the w3c rdf WG comes together and fixes this once and for all, or we all accept the fact that the common usage is the proper one, even if it's not. If the examples are wrong, they get more and more right every day just by dint of usage.

It's the job of the RDF WG to give steerage. Loudly, clearly, and without confusion. If people are following the spec examples, rather than reading the WG hive mind, then it's the WG's fault.

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.

or to invent your own license and give it a URI all of its own. We can do that, without CC giving a damn, right? (as long as we don't use the CC logo etc.)





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page