[cc-devel] cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 10

kyaw thura maung

2014-03-14 21:48:43 UTC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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 <http://www.kennisland.nl/> | t

+31205756720| m

_______________________________________________
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

cc:Requirement which is in the range of cc:requires which has a domain

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

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

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

)
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

cc:Requirement which is in the range of cc:requires which has a domain

cc:License. A specific copyright notice would be pertinent to a

licensed

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/attachments/20140315/69571aab/attachment.html

-------------- 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...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/attachments/20140315/07c44ea2/attachment-0001.html