W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2008

[whatwg] Absent rev?

From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:40:15 +0000
Message-ID: <20081118134015.GT23384@stripey.com>
Dan Brickley writes:

> Smylers wrote:
> 
> > Martin McEvoy writes:
> >
> > > !! rel-author doesn't mean the same as rev-made eg:
> >
> > In which cases doesn't it?  If A is the author of B then B was made by
> > A, surely?
> 
> Then B contributed to the creation of A, yes. Perhaps not on their own.
> 
> But we need it in the other direction too: can we conclude from { A made  
> B } that { B author A } ?
> 
> Not if B isn't textual. Authorship is about writing, but there are
> many other avenues for human creativity (some of which result in
> things with URLs, eg. software, images, sounds).

Firstly, the term author can be used for at least some of those things;
definitely software.

Secondly, if you think made is more generic than author, then surely
linking to such URLs with rel=made is an improvement on using
rev=author?

> First is "a" versus "the". Nothing warrants reading "the" into
> rel=author.

So presumably also nothing warrants reading "the" into rel=made?

> The early Dublin Core specs had a "dc:author" property. This was
> changed back in 1996 or so to be dc:creator,

I agree that creator would be a better term than author.  But I think
that's irrelevant to needing rev.

Smylers
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 05:40:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:07 UTC