[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
John Cowan said:
> Eric van der Vlist scripsit:
>
>> Jonathan Borden said:
>>
>> > I assume that Eric wants a well known RDDL purpose to use in
>> > documents that he is authoring. RDDL purposes are simply URIrefs.
>> > The idea is that the document pointed to (by href="") has a purpose
>> > of "licence" or
>> > "copyright" and a nature of "HTML" or "plain text" or whatever the
>> > format of the document pointed to is.
>>
>> Yes, exactly.
>
> 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.
Eric
--
Freelance consulting and training.
http://dyomedea.com/english/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
