OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] RDDL: Can we add a 'copyright' version

[ 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.



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS