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: metadata AT creativecommons.org
  • Subject: Re: questions on the RDF/XML
  • Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 00:35:37 +0100

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page