discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work

[Ben Hammersley <ben AT benhammersley.com>]

On Saturday, December 28, 2002, at 12:55 PM, Ben Hammersley wrote:

> On Friday, December 27, 2002, at 11:06 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
> > However, regardless of personal view of this, you're pushing a form of
> > dc:creator that now differs from the documentation that exists at 
> > Dublin
> > Core _in published form_ and that exists in many many many 
> > applications,
> > including every use of RSS actively supported (RSS 1.0 and 2.0), most
> > weblogging uses, and I bet several other applications. Just something 
> > to
> > note.
>
> ARRRRRGHHHHHHH
>
> Right. Here's the thing. Simple question for Aaron and Lisa, and I 
> want a simple yes/no answer. If the word 'huh' appears in any answer, 
> I swear to god someone is going to get beaten.
>
> And the question is thus:
>
> Is the RDF representation of the CCL still valid with a string literal 
> form of <dc:creator> ?

I know this might seem painful, but I really need an answer. Both 
Shelley and I are finishing ORA books that will contain the CC RDF 
representation, and mine at least is very very close to going to the 
printers. There is also the RSS 1.0 module at large, and Dave Winer's 
self-proclaimed "CCL for all plain XML" spec. People are implementing 
this with string-literal dc:creator *right*now* (or without regard to 
dc at all). It's in the RSS validator as of this morning, for one thing.

Whatever the answer, I need to know for my proofs, Shelley needs to 
know for her first draft, and everyone else needs to know for their 
code. It's not yet a case of bad-spec-runaway, but it may soon be if 
people are not advised properly. This is really important.

Ben