Peter has the intent of the vocabulary about right, but of course
unaided machine processing will get lots of cases wrong. So do unaided
humans. A modest but feasible goal is for machines to help humans get
it more right more of the time.
terms and others would've been adequate. It may be they're adequate
denoting names and links a licensor wants was foolish. The real world
will.
above) the no restrictions/public domain case. cc:attributionName/URL
useGuidelines in the vocabulary). Again it isn't super clear that
too).
Post by Maarten ZeinstraYes you are interpreting CC-REL to narrowly.
CC-REL is used to be able to communicate as basically as possible what a
person can or cannot do with a license. No RDF-triple, knowledge graph,
database, rule based systems can be as precise as a legal contract. That is
because these legal contracts are not meant for machine communication, they
are meant for natural persons. Only by using very narrow definitions can
refer to a 'fact' or 'requirement', 'probition', etc. using something like
RDF. And that definition is possible :) then you need to use <Work>
<CC:license> <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/> That is the most
accurate description of Attribution and it needs. Because attribution really
also depends on the license.
Cheers,
Maarten
--
Kennisland
No, I don't expect full RDF representation either, just that cc:attribute
(and the other terms) would be defined as something like "attribute in
compliance with the CC license legal code", and then guidelines to tool
developers on what that means (or even just guidelines). This is how I
started summarising it, but if that is not the intention I appreciate being
The Creative Commons licenses all require attribution, and defines in the
legal code how to do it. ccREL ties [though it seems not formally] these
requirements to the metadata on the work, so that if these properties are
dcterms:license, cc:license or xhtml:license (synonyms in RFD): the URI
linking to the license terms (e.g.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
cc:attributionName: the name of the author and/or designated attribution parties
dc:title: the title of the work
cc:attributionURL: a URI associated with the work, which should refer to
copyright or licensing information about the work (otherwise there is no
obligation to include the URI, and another property should be used)
I might be interpreting ccREL too harshly since I'm rather new to this area,
but this is also because I'm coming from the direction "how can this support
tooling and automate attribution". This thread indicates that there's a risk
that a loosely defined cc:attribute (and the other properties too) will
cause tools to implement incorrect license processing.
/Peter
Post by Nathan YerglerI don't believe there was any expectation that the RDF representation
could fully express the legal code of a license. I think that means
Maarten is correct.
Of course, there are tools out there that take the attribution
requirement and "just happen" to generate attribution text that
matches what the CC licenses require. I'd have to think about it more
to decide if that's a sane behavior or if they should be checking
something else before deciding to do that.
NRY
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Peter Liljenberg
Post by Peter LiljenbergThis reminds me of the question the other week about cc:attributionURL vs
xmpRights:WebStatement, where the response was that cc:attributionURL was
related to the legal code of the license even though that wasn't fully
expressed in the ccREL description. That made it map to the semantics of
xmpRights:WebStatement.
cc:require cc:attribution seems to me to also be related to the legal code
that specifies exactly what attribution means (e.g. 4b in
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode). Or is it intended to
be the more generic term described in the RDF schema?
/Peter
Post by Maarten ZeinstraHi Jonas,
"credit be given to copyright holder and/or author" according to
view-source:https://creativecommons.org/schema.rdf
So I read this as a binary that when present credit should be given. It
does not specify a way to do that, and I think it shouldn't as well.
Cheers,
Maarten
--
Kennisland
Hi all,
here's a question from IRC which was left hanging. Wondering if anyone
here has any thoughts about it :)
09:14 <jonaso> Been looking at
https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/372427 which uses ccREL cc:permits
and cc:requires to express licenses which are not CC licenses, ie., FAL.
They've coded FAL same as CC BY-SA
09:14 <jonaso> I wonder if that's the intent: ns#Attribution has a
specific meaning in the CC vocabulary which is slightly different from FAL's
attribution requirement.
09:15 <jonaso> So I wonder if we should think of ccREL ns#Attribution as
"requires some attribution, unspecified exactly how, what or when" or if
ns#Attribution should mean more exactly the terms of the CC licenses.
09:16 <jonaso> In the latter case, I guess there should be a separate
vocabulary to express terms more closely to FAL and other licenses.
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
_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list
cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel