Discussion:
[cc-devel] cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 11
kyaw thura maung
2014-03-14 21:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Vol 94, Issue 11

Kyaw
Send cc-devel mailing list submissions to
cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cc-devel-request at lists.ibiblio.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
cc-devel-owner at lists.ibiblio.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of cc-devel digest..."
1. Re: cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 10 (kyaw thura maung)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 04:18:43 +0630
From: kyaw thura maung <tamutharlay at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [cc-devel] cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 10
To: cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org
<CAMc+1XNiborSHPsUBxrQrbX7827M=gz99M05N=
f_1qpgMZ8YXg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Vol 94, issue 10
Kyaw
Send cc-devel mailing list submissions to
cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cc-devel-request at lists.ibiblio.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
cc-devel-owner at lists.ibiblio.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of cc-devel digest..."
1. Re: cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 8 (kyaw thura maung)
2. Re: cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 9 (kyaw thura maung)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 01:55:45 +0630
From: kyaw thura maung <tamutharlay at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [cc-devel] cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 8
To: cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org
<
CAMc+1XMOnUabckSR9rDm6hnvYzU0CuoZgarwW1o87-u9ML8hcg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Help
Kyaw
Send cc-devel mailing list submissions to
cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cc-devel-request at lists.ibiblio.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
cc-devel-owner at lists.ibiblio.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of cc-devel digest..."
1. Re: Missing machine readable notice statement in all CC4.0
licenses (Mike Linksvayer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:03:37 -0700
From: Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>
Subject: Re: [cc-devel] Missing machine readable notice statement in
all CC4.0 licenses
To: Maarten Zeinstra <mz at kl.nl>, Tarmo Toikkanen
<tarmo.toikkanen at iki.fi>
Cc: "cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org devel" <cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org>,
Antoine Isaac <aisaac at few.vu.nl>
Message-ID: <53232859.6020908 at gondwanaland.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi Mike,
Putting the implications of CC-rel aside you agree that we need to
modify that document.
If it were up to you where would you place that RDFa? You indicated
that putting it on top of ?indicate if changes were made? is not
ideal, I agree. But it is the best possible place on the page as it
is
now, if you ask me. Antoine and I also considered creating an empty
span to communicate this RDF, however according to Antoine (who know
way more about this than I) search engine consider them spam and
might
lower the ranking of CC?s pages.
Attribution ? You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the
license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any
reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor
endorses you or your use.
to
Attribution ? You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the
license, and indicate if changes were made *while keeping any notices
intact*. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way
that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
and add the RDFa to the newly added words. That is however something
that the lawyers and community need to discuss.
Those added words would be the ideal place to add a cc:requires
cc:Notice annotation. I assume the current text was crafted very
carefully, so I've no opinion. Without the added words, maybe a span
around "do so".
Another option would be to remove the Notice statement from the RDF/XML
as well and change the schema such that cc:Notice is a subclass of
cc:Attribution. This would reflect how most people bundle the concepts,
including now on the deeds, and also outside CC -- some people call BSD
and MIT attribution licenses, though their only such requirement is to
retain copyright notices. I'd recommend getting more expert semweb
feedback before implementing this option.
Mike
What do you guys think?
Bottom line: as it stands now we provide two machine readable
resources that claim different requirements of the licenses, that
needs to be fixed.
Best,
Maarten
--
Kennisland
| www.kennisland.nl <http://www.kennisland.nl/> | t +31205756720
<tel://t%20+31205756720> | m +31643053919 <tel://m%20+31643053919> |
@mzeinstra
On 14 Mar 2014 at 6:25:14 , Mike Linksvayer (ml at gondwanaland.com
RDFa in the deed describes the corresponding license, and cc:Notice
is a cc:Requirement which is in the range of cc:requires which has a
domain of cc:License. A specific copyright notice would be pertinent
to a licensed work -- if this were called out with RDFa, perhaps
dc:rights or another refinement(s...there are potentially notices of
copyright, license, modification, warranty disclaimer) thereof,
it'd
go in the HTML published with the licensed work.
If I were writing an automatic remixing tool I'd go with "...it may
be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or
hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information." --
hyperlink to the publisher's site, possibly including various
notices
in languages I can't discern, and archive that page if you want to
do
something extra. You can't count on anyone to properly annotate such
notices anyway, so a tool that looks for them can't be foolproof.
You
can pretty much count on them not being properly annotated, as title
and creator name usually aren't despite being in the CC chooser
forever. IANAL etc.
Maarten is right that the cc:Notice annotation ought be added back
to
the deed. I might not add it to the text concerning indication of
modification as notice isn't specific only to that, but that's very
close to right. IMHO etc.
Mike
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Tarmo Toikkanen
As the 4.0 license allows for licensees to specify a custom
copyright notice, which reusers must retain in any reproductions
and redistributions, would the new cc:Notice tag actually
contain
this custom copyright notice, or is it for something else?
I for one would like to see the copyright notice be part of the
license RDFa, since it?s unrealistic to expect reusers to retain
information that can only be found by visually browsing the
publisher?s site, and trying to locate such information
(possibly
in a foreign language, even).
--
Tarmo Toikkanen
tarmo at iki.fi <mailto:tarmo at iki.fi>
http://tarmo.fi
Hi all,
Recently I?ve been working with Antoine Isaac (in cc) from
Europeana on the machine readability of the deed pages of the
4.0 licenses. Antoine noticed that the RDF attached to the
attribution license (and all other licenses) was not in sync
with the separate RDF file.
the RDFa
of http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (using
http://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/extract?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fcreativecommons.org%2Flicenses%2Fby%2F4.0%2F&format=turtle&rdfagraph=output&vocab_expansion=false&rdfa_lite=false&embedded_rdf=true&space_preserve=true&vocab_cache=true&vocab_cache_report=false&vocab_cache_refresh=false
)
to
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/rdf
The latter has a cc:requires cc:Notice which is missing in the
former.
The consequence of this is that machine readers could get
confused because there are contradicting sources. Also software
based on this standard could produce wrong information.
To fix this problem we propose to move the the rdfa of
cc:Attribution and add a cc:Notice RDFa tag. We?ve created a
pull request that details this change
https://github.com/creativecommons/creativecommons.org/pull/18
What do you guys think of this change request? Did we overlook
something and is this the most elegant way to fix this problem?
Many thanks to Antoine for pointing this out and working on a
fix with me.
Cheers,
Maarten
--
Kennisland
| www.kennisland.nl <http://www.kennisland.nl/> | t
_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list
cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org>
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list
cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org>
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/attachments/20140314/d6c4be7c/attachment.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list
cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
End of cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 8
***************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/attachments/20140315/2a0eefad/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 04:16:59 +0630
From: kyaw thura maung <tamutharlay at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [cc-devel] cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 9
To: cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org
<CAMc+1XOYGs9d1at1KCPp=-zBymyu7Ls=
aR-KoDwfaaUpMZpicg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Vol 94, Issue 9
Kyaw
Send cc-devel mailing list submissions to
cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cc-devel-request at lists.ibiblio.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
cc-devel-owner at lists.ibiblio.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of cc-devel digest..."
1. Re: Missing machine readable notice statement in all CC4.0
licenses (Mike Linksvayer)
2. Re: cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 7 (kyaw thura maung)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 12:22:14 -0700
From: Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>
Subject: Re: [cc-devel] Missing machine readable notice statement in
all CC4.0 licenses
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac at few.vu.nl>
Cc: "cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org devel" <cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org>
<
CAGSmzpQcqn2y_i9mb+Sk-f9WrJKaHX5_1PPCS_LxBCDHzx66+w at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac at few.vu.nl>
Hi Mike, all
(I'm not sure this mail will reach cc-devel so please forward if
needed!)
I'm quoting in full in case it doesn't.
Some first two cents by a "semantic web expert"...
Thank you very much! No need for scare quotes, I was completely serious
in
wanting feedback from experts. I only know enough to be misinformed. :)
1. If cc:Notice was a subclass of cc:Attribution, then it would be
semantically possible to remove cc:Attribution (because it's implied
by
the
presence of cc:Notice) but not cc:Notice (because it's not implied by
the
presence of cc:Attribution).
2. I'm not sure I would recommend removing statements because there
are
sub-class axioms. This is ok in principle, but in practice many data
consumers do not apply the sort of reasoning tools that would enable
to
find the "implied" statements. I guess this is especially true for
consumers of CC(rel) data. So I would still recommend to keep all
important
statements explicit in the RDF data and the corresponding mark-up.
3. I am raising points 1 and 2 just for the sake of the argument.
Because
in fact with the current data it wouldn't work, from a formal
perspective.
The resources cc:Notice and cc:Attribution are not represented as
(RDFS/OWL) classes in the data, they are 'instances'.
(i) aLicense cc:requires cc:Notice .
(ii) aLicense cc:requires cc:Attribution .
If one defines the axiom
cc:Notice rdfs:subClass cc:Attribution
Then it does not help to infer any additional statement from the
statement
(i).
One would have to use more complex axioms, possibly even outside of
basic
RDFS/OWL expressivity.
Ok, subclass idea was half-baked and wrong. Discard it, but the other
half
would be to change the description of cc:Attribution to include
retaining
notices. How cc:Notice is described would be irrelevant, for it would
not
be used at all in describing any CC licenses.* There are no CC licenses
described as requiring only one of Notice or Attribution, and the
concepts
are generally mingled in descriptions and understandings of the
licenses,
including on the deed. There's no reason for both. The
description-of-a-license part of CCREL isn't intended to be precise,
and
maybe it is too precise in this case, for no gain.
Further half-baked, which might mean 1/4 or 3/4 or 0 or 1 or something
else
depending on operation applied...
Mike
* At one time CC published deeds and metadata for a few software
licenses,
and those required only cc:Notice not cc:Attribution eg
http://web.archive.org/web/20100904085343/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/MIT/rdfbut
those now redirect to the relevant OSI and FSF pages and to my
knowledge nobody ever used the RDF license descriptions (actually you
can
almost say that about the descriptions of CC licenses, except
internally).
Anyway cc:Notice could sit there in the CC schema, and someone could
figure
out what relationship to make between it and cc:Attribution and add
that
to
the schema if anyone really wanted to.
Kind regards
Antoine
Hi Mike,
Putting the implications of CC-rel aside you agree that we need to
modify that document.
If it were up to you where would you place that RDFa? You indicated
that
putting it on top of "indicate if changes were made" is not ideal,
I
agree.
But it is the best possible place on the page as it is now, if you
ask
me.
Antoine and I also considered creating an empty span to communicate
this
RDF, however according to Antoine (who know way more about this
than
I)
search engine consider them spam and might lower the ranking of
CC's
pages.
Attribution -- You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to
the
license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any
reasonable
manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you
or
your
use.
to
Attribution -- You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to
the
license, and indicate if changes were made *while keeping any
notices
intact*. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way
that
suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
and add the RDFa to the newly added words. That is however
something
that the lawyers and community need to discuss.
Those added words would be the ideal place to add a cc:requires
cc:Notice
annotation. I assume the current text was crafted very carefully, so
I've
no opinion. Without the added words, maybe a span around "do so".
Another option would be to remove the Notice statement from the
RDF/XML
as well and change the schema such that cc:Notice is a subclass of
cc:Attribution. This would reflect how most people bundle the
concepts,
including now on the deeds, and also outside CC -- some people call
BSD
and
MIT attribution licenses, though their only such requirement is to
retain
copyright notices. I'd recommend getting more expert semweb feedback
before
implementing this option.
Mike
What do you guys think?
Bottom line: as it stands now we provide two machine readable
resources
that claim different requirements of the licenses, that needs to be
fixed.
Best,
Maarten
--
Kennisland
| www.kennisland.nl <http://www.kennisland.nl/> | t
+31205756720<tel://t%20
+31205756720> | m +31643053919 <tel://m%20+31643053919> |
@mzeinstra
On 14 Mar 2014 at 6:25:14 , Mike Linksvayer (ml at gondwanaland.com
RDFa in the deed describes the corresponding license, and
cc:Notice
is
a cc:Requirement which is in the range of cc:requires which has a
domain of
cc:License. A specific copyright notice would be pertinent to a
licensed
work -- if this were called out with RDFa, perhaps dc:rights or
another
refinement(s...there are potentially notices of copyright,
license,
modification, warranty disclaimer) thereof, it'd go in the HTML
published
with the licensed work.
If I were writing an automatic remixing tool I'd go with "...it
may
be
reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or
hyperlink
to a
resource that includes the required information." -- hyperlink to
the
publisher's site, possibly including various notices in languages
I
can't
discern, and archive that page if you want to do something extra.
You
can't
count on anyone to properly annotate such notices anyway, so a
tool
that
looks for them can't be foolproof. You can pretty much count on
them
not
being properly annotated, as title and creator name usually aren't
despite
being in the CC chooser forever. IANAL etc.
Maarten is right that the cc:Notice annotation ought be added back
to
the deed. I might not add it to the text concerning indication of
modification as notice isn't specific only to that, but that's
very
close
to right. IMHO etc.
Mike
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Tarmo Toikkanen <
As the 4.0 license allows for licensees to specify a custom
copyright notice, which reusers must retain in any reproductions
and
redistributions, would the new cc:Notice tag actually contain this
custom
copyright notice, or is it for something else?
I for one would like to see the copyright notice be part of
the
license RDFa, since it's unrealistic to expect reusers to retain
information that can only be found by visually browsing the
publisher's
site, and trying to locate such information (possibly in a foreign
language, even).
--
Tarmo Toikkanen
tarmo at iki.fi <mailto:tarmo at iki.fi>
http://tarmo.fi
Hi all,
Recently I've been working with Antoine Isaac (in cc) from
Europeana on the machine readability of the deed pages of the 4.0
licenses.
Antoine noticed that the RDF attached to the attribution license
(and all
other licenses) was not in sync with the separate RDF file.
the RDFa of http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/(using
http://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/extract?uri=http%3A%2F%
2Fcreativecommons.org%2Flicenses%2Fby%2F4.0%2F&
format=turtle&rdfagraph=output&vocab_expansion=false&
rdfa_lite=false&embedded_rdf=true&space_preserve=true&
vocab_cache=true&vocab_cache_report=false&vocab_cache_refresh=false)
to
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/rdf
The latter has a cc:requires cc:Notice which is missing in
the
former.
The consequence of this is that machine readers could get
confused
because there are contradicting sources. Also software based on
this
standard could produce wrong information.
To fix this problem we propose to move the the rdfa of
cc:Attribution and add a cc:Notice RDFa tag. We've created a pull
request
https://github.com/creativecommons/
creativecommons.org/pull/18
What do you guys think of this change request? Did we
overlook
something and is this the most elegant way to fix this problem?
Many thanks to Antoine for pointing this out and working on a
fix
with me.
Cheers,
Maarten
--
Kennisland
| www.kennisland.nl <http://www.kennisland.nl/> | t
+31205756720| m
_______________________________________________
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 <mailto:cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/attachments/20140314/ffb351e2/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 01:55:31 +0630
From: kyaw thura maung <tamutharlay at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [cc-devel] cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 7
To: cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org
<CAMc+1XMD93Vn1v81PTtV2==
eofmNOvMo5QGbwpGuE_NRgd1oRA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Help
Kyaw
Send cc-devel mailing list submissions to
cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cc-devel-request at lists.ibiblio.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
cc-devel-owner at lists.ibiblio.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of cc-devel digest..."
1. Re: Missing machine readable notice statement in all CC4.0
licenses (Mike Linksvayer)
2. Re: Missing machine readable notice statement in all CC4.0
licenses (Maarten Zeinstra)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 22:25:13 -0700
From: Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>
Subject: Re: [cc-devel] Missing machine readable notice statement in
all CC4.0 licenses
To: Tarmo Toikkanen <tarmo.toikkanen at iki.fi>
Cc: "cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org devel" <cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org>,
Antoine Isaac <aisaac at few.vu.nl>
<CAGSmzpSQ3GueNGRDhEj_sTujb6HJ9j=
dTNxuROO7SP+JP-E2BQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
RDFa in the deed describes the corresponding license, and cc:Notice
is
a
cc:Requirement which is in the range of cc:requires which has a
domain
of
cc:License. A specific copyright notice would be pertinent to a
licensed
work -- if this were called out with RDFa, perhaps dc:rights or
another
refinement(s...there are potentially notices of copyright, license,
modification, warranty disclaimer) thereof, it'd go in the HTML
published
with the licensed work.
If I were writing an automatic remixing tool I'd go with "...it may
be
reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink
to a
resource that includes the required information." -- hyperlink to the
publisher's site, possibly including various notices in languages I
can't
discern, and archive that page if you want to do something extra. You
can't
count on anyone to properly annotate such notices anyway, so a tool
that
looks for them can't be foolproof. You can pretty much count on them
not
being properly annotated, as title and creator name usually aren't
despite
being in the CC chooser forever. IANAL etc.
Maarten is right that the cc:Notice annotation ought be added back to
the
deed. I might not add it to the text concerning indication of
modification
as notice isn't specific only to that, but that's very close to
right.
IMHO
etc.
Mike
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Tarmo Toikkanen <
tarmo.toikkanen at iki.fi
As the 4.0 license allows for licensees to specify a custom
copyright
notice, which reusers must retain in any reproductions and
redistributions,
would the new cc:Notice tag actually contain this custom copyright
notice,
or is it for something else?
I for one would like to see the copyright notice be part of the
license
RDFa, since it's unrealistic to expect reusers to retain
information
that
can only be found by visually browsing the publisher's site, and
trying
to
locate such information (possibly in a foreign language, even).
--
Tarmo Toikkanen
tarmo at iki.fi
http://tarmo.fi
Hi all,
Recently I've been working with Antoine Isaac (in cc) from
Europeana
on
the machine readability of the deed pages of the 4.0 licenses.
Antoine
noticed that the RDF attached to the attribution license (and all
other
licenses) was not in sync with the separate RDF file.
the RDFa of http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (using
http://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/extract?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fcreativecommons.org%2Flicenses%2Fby%2F4.0%2F&format=turtle&rdfagraph=output&vocab_expansion=false&rdfa_lite=false&embedded_rdf=true&space_preserve=true&vocab_cache=true&vocab_cache_report=false&vocab_cache_refresh=false
)
to
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/rdf
The latter has a cc:requires cc:Notice which is missing in the
former.
The consequence of this is that machine readers could get confused
because
there are contradicting sources. Also software based on this
standard
could
produce wrong information.
To fix this problem we propose to move the the rdfa of
cc:Attribution
and
add a cc:Notice RDFa tag. We've created a pull request that details
this
https://github.com/creativecommons/creativecommons.org/pull/18
What do you guys think of this change request? Did we overlook
something
and is this the most elegant way to fix this problem?
Many thanks to Antoine for pointing this out and working on a fix
with
me.
Cheers,
Maarten
--
Kennisland
_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/attachments/20140313/cc6b993a/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:04:18 +0100
From: Maarten Zeinstra <mz at kl.nl>
Subject: Re: [cc-devel] Missing machine readable notice statement in
all CC4.0 licenses
To: Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>, Tarmo Toikkanen
<tarmo.toikkanen at iki.fi>
Cc: " cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org devel " <
cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org>,
Antoine Isaac <aisaac at few.vu.nl>
Message-ID: <etPan.5322c612.4516dde9.1759 at MacBook-Air-Maarten.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi Mike,
Putting the implications of CC-rel aside you agree that we need to
modify
that document.?
If it were up to you where would you place that RDFa? You indicated
that
putting it on top of ?indicate if changes were made? is not ideal, I
agree.
But it is the best possible place on the page as it is now, if you
ask
me.
Antoine and I also considered creating an empty span to communicate
this
RDF, however according to Antoine (who know way more about this than
I)
search engine consider them spam and might lower the ranking of CC?s
pages.
Attribution ? You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the
license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any
reasonable
manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or
your
use.
to?
Attribution ? You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the
license, and indicate if changes were made while keeping any notices
intact. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way
that
suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
and add the RDFa to the newly added words. That is however something
that
the lawyers and community need to discuss.
What do you guys think?
Bottom line: as it stands now we provide two machine readable
resources
that claim different requirements of the licenses, that needs to be
fixed.
Best,
Maarten
--?
Kennisland??|?www.kennisland.nl?|?t +31205756720?|?m +31643053919?|
@mzeinstra
On 14 Mar 2014 at 6:25:14 , Mike Linksvayer (ml at gondwanaland.com)
RDFa in the deed describes the corresponding license, and cc:Notice
is
a
cc:Requirement which is in the range of cc:requires which has a
domain
of
cc:License. A specific copyright notice would be pertinent to a
licensed
work -- if this were called out with RDFa, perhaps dc:rights or
another
refinement(s...there are potentially notices of copyright, license,
modification, warranty disclaimer) ?thereof, it'd go in the HTML
published
with the licensed work.
If I were writing an automatic remixing tool I'd go with?"...it may
be
reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink
to a
resource that includes the required information." -- hyperlink to the
publisher's site, possibly including various notices in languages I
can't
discern, and archive that page if you want to do something extra. You
can't
count on anyone to properly annotate such notices anyway, so a tool
that
looks for them can't be foolproof. You can pretty much count on them
not
being properly annotated, as title and creator name usually aren't
despite
being in the CC chooser forever. IANAL etc.
Maarten is right that the cc:Notice annotation ought be added back to
the
deed. I might not add it to the text concerning indication of
modification
as notice isn't specific only to that, but that's very close to
right.
IMHO
etc.
Mike
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Tarmo Toikkanen <
tarmo.toikkanen at iki.fi>
As the 4.0 license allows for licensees to specify a custom copyright
notice, which reusers must retain in any reproductions and
redistributions,
would the new cc:Notice tag actually contain this custom copyright
notice,
or is it for something else?
I for one would like to see the copyright notice be part of the
license
RDFa, since it?s unrealistic to expect reusers to retain information
that
can only be found by visually browsing the publisher?s site, and
trying
to
locate such information (possibly in a foreign language, even).
--?
Tarmo Toikkanen
tarmo at iki.fi
http://tarmo.fi
Hi all,
Recently I?ve been working with Antoine Isaac (in cc) from Europeana
on
the machine readability of the deed pages of the 4.0 licenses.
Antoine
noticed that the RDF attached to the attribution license (and all
other
licenses) was not in sync with the separate RDF file.
the RDFa of?
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/?(using?http://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/extract?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fcreativecommons.org%2Flicenses%2Fby%2F4.0%2F&format=turtle&rdfagraph=output&vocab_expansion=false&rdfa_lite=false&embedded_rdf=true&space_preserve=true&vocab_cache=true&vocab_cache_report=false&vocab_cache_refresh=false)
to
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/rdf?
The latter has a cc:requires cc:Notice which is?missing in the
former.
The consequence of this is that machine readers could get confused
because
there are contradicting sources. Also software based on this standard
could
produce wrong information.
To fix this problem we propose to move the the rdfa of cc:Attribution
and
add a cc:Notice RDFa tag. We?ve created a pull request that details
this
change here:?
https://github.com/creativecommons/creativecommons.org/pull/18
What do you guys think of this change request? Did we overlook
something
and is this the most elegant way to fix this problem?
Many thanks to Antoine for pointing this out and working on a fix
with
me.
Cheers,
Maarten
--?
Kennisland?? |?www.kennisland.nl?|?t +31205756720?|?m +31643053919?|
@mzeinstra
_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/attachments/20140314/2daafc27/attachment.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list
cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
End of cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 7
***************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/attachments/20140315/69571aab/attachment.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list
cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
End of cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 9
***************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/attachments/20140315/dc48f28c/attachment.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list
cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
End of cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 10
****************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/attachments/20140315/07c44ea2/attachment.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list
cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
End of cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 11
****************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/attachments/20140315/30fba3b8/attachment-0001.html
Loading...