[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: RDDL: Can we add a 'copyright' version

• To: "Eric van der Vlist" <vdv@d...>
• Subject: Re: RDDL: Can we add a 'copyright' version
• From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
• Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:44:22 -0500
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <41968.194.51.100.246.1077485538.squirrel@c...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9F3A1@h...> <BE261A3C-6563-11D8-9E31-000A95BA5A2C@o...> <39648.194.51.100.246.1077483673.squirrel@c...> <20040222210911.GU9342@c...> <41968.194.51.100.246.1077485538.squirrel@c...>

Eric van der Vlist wrote:

>
> John Cowan said:
>>
>> In that case, this would seem to be equivalent to the Dublin Core
>> "rights" element, the URI for which is
>> http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/rights . I think this should be used 
>> in
>> preference to assigning a separate RDDL URI. Here's the
>> English-language characterization of this element:
>>
>> 	Typically, a Rights element will contain a rights management
>> 	statement for the resource, or reference a service providing such
>> 	information. Rights information often encompasses Intellectual
>> 	Property Rights (IPR), Copyright, and various Property Rights. If the
>> 	Rights element is absent, no assumptions can be made about
>> 	the status of these and other rights with respect to the resource.
>
> Hmmm... I hadn't seen that under this angle before, but I think that 
> both
> are slightly different.
> Using the DC Rights elements means that the linked resource describes 
> the
> licence applied to the RDDL document as such.
> Using a rddl:resource with a purpose of licence would mean that the 
> linked
> resource describes the licence applied to the namespace, which is more
> general.

Oooh  let's not get into the debate over whether the RDDL document is a 
separate resource from the namespace. I like to think that the 
namespace is the resource which the RDDL document represents. I think 
that the DC rights URIref has the intended meaning i.e. that the 
"resource" being referred to is the namespace.

Jonathan

• References:
  • RE: RDDL: Can we add a "copyright" version
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Re: RDDL: Can we add a "copyright" version
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: RDDL: Can we add a 'copyright' version
    • From: "Eric van der Vlist" <vdv@d...>
  • Re: RDDL: Can we add a 'copyright' version
    • From: "Eric van der Vlist" <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SAX Topic 2004-0002: XML 1.1 support
• Next by Date: Re: Piccolo Java SAX parser and others in the wild?
• Previous by thread: Re: RDDL: Can we add a 'copyright' version
• Next by thread: RE: RDDL: Can we add a "copyright" version
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread