The subject of both statements is the work. The only way to stay sane
is to check with the RDFa Distiller.
Maybe the formatting is unclear, but that's a critique of that example
(attribution URL should have copyright info for work in question;
author's home page unlikely it) and/or of HTML annotation/RDFa/RDFa
1.0/CC REL/take your pick.
The licensor can make whatever URL they want be the object of
attributionURL or WebStatement, but in terms of requesting attribution
for compliance with the license or for "verification", it needs to
provide copyright info valid for the work in question.
This can be pretty unclear in the case of something like
creativecommons.org/choose where what one gets is a generic bit of
markup that one might apply to a particular work, but one might just
put in a template. The only data I know of shows that many people
probably just copy the same URL into every available URL field, so
"correct" attributionURL (& co) are rare in practice, see
http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2012/01/23/attribution-crawl/
CC recommending use of WebStatement in XMP preceeds attributionURL by
a few years. Former came about due to (entirely valid) concern that
embedded metadata has no provenance and is completely untrustworthy;
webstatement (& analogous for other file types) and "web verification"
meant to mitigate that. (I have no data, but personal anecdote, CC
file embedding recommendations almost never followed correctly, and
software consuming them, specifically LimeWire, just led to spamming
and making false/naive assertions in them; as was pointed out by
various people back then, and I specifically recall Lucas Gonze, CC
didn't help much as its embedding tools were mere prototypes; I didn't
really try to do anything about it due to lack of resources and
evaluation of task as sisyphean.)
Possibly should've recommended WebStatement for use in HTML-hosted
RDFa rather than making up attributionURL. I don't think the idea of
doing so came up, probably due to XMP being a weird thing that does
its best to ignore RDF and RDF people to ignore it, and lack of
imagination and inspiration to see past that.
Mike
Dan,
apologies for my harsh comments yesterday -- I realize they were not helpful
you're right.
The URL can indeed be whatever the author would like it to be. In order for
the verification to work, that URL needs be something that includes the
license RDFa and a SHA1 sum of the work. This seems to lend itself more
towards thinking of the URL as referring to the work itself, however,
there's nothing preventing an author -- and some might even chose this -- to
list all the works on a single URL and use this URL as the attribution URL.
I'd say associating the attributionURL with work is thus as wrong as
associating it with attributionName: it can be either, or neither.
It does seem useful to write this up and clarify though, but it needs not be
part of the standard document itself but can be part of implementation
guides, examples, etc. Where do you think it makes most sense to gather
information like this -- suggestions for improvement s, clarifications, and
guidance for people implementing it?
Sincerely,
Jonas
Post by Dan MillsSorry, maybe I missed something. Where does it say that? The links I found
(and quoted below) were pretty clear that the URL is whatever the author
would like it to be.
Dan
Dan,
I appreciate your input but respectfully disagree on this, since they
visually (if not semantically) associate the URL with the author, and not
the work (where the standard says it should refer to the work). However, it
doesn't feel as if we'll get much further in this discussion. :-)
Jonas
Sure. Though those are just as valid, since the URL can really point to anything.
Dan
Dan,
Yes, the only issue I see now is that the examples associate the URL with
the person, not the work. We do not need go change the semantics of the
standard, but we should rework some examples and use cases, as well as
clarify the intended use.
Jonas
Hi Jonas,
I think that should already be possible, no?
"The URL the creator of a Work would like used when attributing re-use."
"The attribution URL is important when you want to indicate what URL
re-users of your CC-licensed work should link to when they attribute your
work."
It's whatever the author wants it to be, so it could be a link to the work.
Dan
Hi Maarten,
I think it's reasonable to just clarify in the ccREL standard that the two
are synonymous.
For the RDFa generated, I think that the attributionURL should be
associated with the work and not the author. Ie.,
This <a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#"
href="http://jonasoberg.net/this-work" rel="cc:attributionURL">work</a> by
<span xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#"
property="cc:attributionName">Jonas ?berg</span>
However, I don't think it's reasonable to make any changes to the chooser
output without at the same time revising the examples in the ccREL standard
document.
So what I'm saying is that having a process for how we record "change
requests" to the standard and how the revision process look like is probably
more important than correcting these specific issues.
Jonas
So Jonas what do you propose.
Would it be better to adjust XMP output of the chooser?
Cheers,
Maarten
--
Post by Nathan YerglerThat's a great point, the formatting does conflate the creator and the
work a bit.
Post by Jonas ÃbergHi Nathan!
I'd be hard pressed to argue semantics with one of the ccREL authors :-)
The specification is clear that attributionURL is "the URL to link to
when providing attribution", which is a reference to the license
requirement. I think what confuses it is that this is most often used,
even in the ccREL examples, to refer to what can be interpreted as the
This work by <a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#"
href="http://jonasoberg.net/" property="cc:attributionName"
rel="cc:attributionURL">Jonas ?berg</a> is licensed under a <a
rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en_US">Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License</a>.
Sincerely,
Jonas
Post by Nathan YerglerHow do you believe a web statement differs from the attribution URL,
functionally?
IIRC a "web statement" is supposed to be a web accessible resource
that contains information about the rights, permissions, etc related
to the work. CC licenses state that the attribution URL only needs to
be cited with the work when it includes copyright information or
license notice (4(b)(iii) in
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode). So both need to
be web-accessible resources that contain license, copyright, or rights
information. I believe that was the basis for treating them as
synonyms.
NRY
Post by Jonas ÃbergDear all,
I was just made aware that in the license chooser, when a user enters
a URL to attribute the work to, this is stored in different properties
in the XMP and RDFa formats. In XMP, it's stored in
xapRights:WebStatement and in RDFa it's stored in cc:attributionURL. I
understand the difference between the two, but it's not clear to me
why there is a difference between how the information from the license
chooser is encoded in the various formats.
It seems to me that there ought to be a separate field that allows a
user to specify a WebStatement, and that the URL to attribute the work
to should be encoded in the cc:attributionURL regardless of what
format is used.
Any thoughts?
Sincerely,
Jonas
_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list
cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list
cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list
cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list
cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel