[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
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
|
