Smylers wrote:
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.
Yes, 'software' was a bad example. But Dublin Core certainly did abandon
the early term 'author' in favour of 'creator' after a workshop looking
at requirements around images, museum artifacts and so on.
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?
I don't associate 'being more generic' as a positive or a negative
thing. Sometimes we want specificity, sometimes not. There is value in a
'see also' relationship type; there is value in a 'schoolHomepage'
relationship type too. Neither need be better.
If I wanted to find written works, then 'author' is a more relevant
property than 'made'. If my concern is to find all the things created by
some party, then 'made' may be more useful. My point was just that they
have a different meaning (although much overlap).
First is "a" versus "the". Nothing warrants reading "the" into
rel=author.
So presumably also nothing warrants reading "the" into rel=made?
Yup. If syntactic context (eg. via RDFa) associated the string 'made'
with a specific definition rather than just the English word, then of
course that definition could say anything it wanted - such as 'sole
maker of ...' , 'primary maker of', etc.
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.
Without rev, content creators (in every language) will need to go
through this dance, hunting through dictionaries and debating
subtleties, to make sure that they've identified a suitable pair of
words such that { X word1 Y } is true if and only if { Y word1 X }.
Which is why I see this in terms of division of labour. Cleaning it out
of HTML5 makes work elsewhere...
cheers,
Dan
--
http://danbri.org/
Smylers
