well, the specificity is a virtue, I think, in that it matches what many metadata systems actually do (they carry, minimally, a copyright notice). If I ask "is this work copyrighted and if so, by who?", I really don't want the answer "well, I have a general statement that says something about your or other people's rights I can give you". So, is there a *problem* with having a very specific "a copyright notice goes here" attribute? I don't see a problem with provision for more general rights expressions (not that I have ever seen them used), but matching what we find on the inside fly-leaf of every book seems a reasonable thing to do, doesn't it? On Aug 12, 2010, at 22:45 , Renato Iannella wrote: > On 13 Aug 2010, at 03:01, David Singer wrote: > >> could we not achieve the same effect by defining that the ma:copyright term matches this use: >> >>> ma:policy[0].statement = "Copyright PLING Inc 2010. All Rights Reserved" >>> ma:policy[0].type = "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab/#copyright" > > This would then not allow a URI to be used for copyright? > > Also, "copyright" is a very specific policy - even Dublin Core has "dc:rights" - which is much broader. > > > Cheers > > Renato Iannella > http://renato.iannella.it > David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 15:41:42 UTC