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.org/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 [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
