On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 18:34 -0500, Terry Hancock wrote:
> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> > 'Creator' is the operator and means something like
"has this creator".
> > The DC-in-RDF guidelines should make this clear,
if nothing else does.
> > Though re-reading the above I suppose you could
think of each
> > term/predicate having an implied is/contains/some
other relationship
> > implied.
>
> I see -- so in my case, it's actually the
"subject" that is implied, not
> the "predicate".
Right.
> >>Supposing I implement an internal
representation of RDF triples... what
> >>do I win? 
> >>
> >>Or put another way, how many operators are
actually sensible in this
> >>context?
> >
> > Operators, if I understand your use above, are
never explicit in RDF or
> > DC. The "triple" is subject (e.g., a
work), predicate (e.g.,
> > creator/license/source/...), object (e.g.,
Bob/BY-SA/sourceURI/...)
> >
> >
> >>Not that I'm criticizing the idea -- I just
want to understand my choices.
> >
> > Maybe not much, I dictionary per thing being
described essentially gets
> > you the same thing.
>
> Yeah, I think so. Certainly I intend for the DC object
to apply to
> exactly one work. Realizing the semantics of the RDF/DC
concept helps
> me, though. I must say I am bothered by the use of
nouns to represent
> "predicates", though -- seems a little
linguistically broken. 
Well, you shouldn't really think of "creator" as a
part of speech here.
It is loose shorthand for http://purl.o
rg/dc/elements/1.1/creator which
is an opaque identifier with some semantics externally
defined.
> In general, ISTM, that you want to have reducing
operations on such
> information -- when two people collaborate to make a
new work (or one
> person derives a new work from an original), you want
to have just one
> licensing and attribution statement for the resulting
work.
I'd argue that the most important information is one URL --
where on the
web can I find out more about this work, potentially
including lots of
interesting metadata.
> It might be
> nice detail to know who did what exactly, but you also
want the
> condensed version that says "this is who you have
to credit when you use
> this work". In fact, what you (or I) really want
is to have the library
> just flat out tell you the exact wording of the notice
you need to use.
I suppose that last sentence points to a human-readable
statement in
dc:rights.
> At first it seemed to me that sub-file resources would
primarily be only
> of interest to document formats like PDF, but I
considered that even
> with seemingly single-work formats like JPG, it's
possible to combine
> multiple works into one document (as in the case of an
array of pictures
> combined into a single image file). In this case, the
ability to refer
> specifically to a particular part of the rendered data
is meaningful. So
> it'll need to be a general capability.
>
> So far, though, I'm skirting that issue -- I'm hoping
to leave enough
> hooks in place so that it can be added on later.
Sounds like the right approach.
--
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:Mike_Linksvayer
_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list
cc-devel lists.ibiblio.org
ht
tp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
|
