[cc-community] Is there a validator for CC tagging?
nathan at creativecommons.org
Tue Mar 9 13:30:32 EST 2010
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Paul Houle <paul at ontology2.com> wrote:
> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Paul Houle <paul at ontology2.com
>> <mailto:paul at ontology2.com>> wrote:
>> On the other hand, if it can really be made as simple as dropping
>> in a <meta> element, and if you can give people unambiguous
>> instructions that give them exactly one choice as to how to do it, I
>> think you'd get a high take-up rate.
>> For what purpose? <meta> elements are hidden to user and machines
>> don't need yet another place to look. If you're concerned about
>> validation (indeed even if you aren't), change
>> <img src="http://ny-pictures.com/nyc/cc-icons/by.png" alt="by/2.0"
>> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"
>> rel="license"><img src="http://ny-pictures.com/nyc/cc-icons/by.png"
>> alt="by/2.0" class="small_license"></a>
>> and add nothing else.
>> That happens to work as RDFa, but validates and is also
> The fact that that "works" as RDFa is pretty scary to me, because I
> don't know why.
> (i) How does it know what namespace "license" is in? Where was
> "license" defined? What else is defined in that source? Is there one
> page I can go to and get a complete list of "rel"s that are valid?
IIRC it's defined as a rel value in XHTML, and as such
"grand-fathered" into RDFa as an unprefixed rel value. The full list
of valid, unprefixed values is in the specification:
> (ii) I'm assuming that it knows that the subject of the assertion is
> the document that contains the assertion because I haven't specified any
> subject; my understanding is that I could set a different subject by
> using a certain attribute on an enclosing element... That would
> probably let me publish semantic metadata on a page like
> that makes assertions about individual pages visible, but now all
> of a sudden a whole bunch of problems show up...
Yes, the subject, by default, is the enclosing page. While you can
put it all in one place, I think there are advantages to putting the
metadata and license information on the specific work pages.
> (iii) I'm comfortable using
> as a linked data link (although I'm not sure if it should have the
> "/" at the end.) I can tell you, with absolutely no uncertainty, that
> that's a terrible link to send end-users to. I have another photo
> collection site that causes me to get more than 10 emails a week from
> people who ask "can I use this picture?" even though I do send them to
> that link. I don't know what it is, but I know they look at it and
> their eyes glaze over and then they pound an email out to me. (Often it
> takes multiple messages to try to explain "CC-BY-SA" so I usually say
> they can use "CC-BY" and they'll never understand "CC-BY-SA")
> I ~do~ know that there's A LOT more to the CC-Licenses that appears
> on the page (for instance, the fine print about CC-BY-SA and
> collections) that I think would surprise many publishers and users, but
> you're not going to find those from the license pages.
> Longer term I'm much more inclined to point people to my own pages
> per license, which will have two things: (a) a step-by-step checklist
> that answers the question of "can I use this and what do I have to do?"
> (I can't afford to keep answering these damn emails as my traffic
> increases) and (b) a navigational axis to see content that's under a
> certain license.
> Provide something that's meaningful to end users at that page and
> I'll change my mind.
> That brings up a general issue I have with RDFa too, which is that
> it ties together presentation and content. In the case above, for
> instance, the decision of what to show users for the license (text,
> image, flash, whatever) and where to put it is a question for a web
> designer: it's really a matter of usability, how it looks, etc.
> However, if they make changes to the code that does that display, it's
> also got an impact on my "linked data" presence.
> Take an example of "using enclosure relationships" to denote the
> subjects of triples. Well, I might have it all working just fine, but
> then I decide that I want to make things look different, so I move some
> content to a different <div>, or rather, my web designer does. She
> forgets to put the right attribute on that other <div> so now I'm
> publishing the wrong triples. It's a pretty easy mistake to make,
> because she's already dealing with a system that stacks templates inside
> of templates so I can reuse visible elements in different places.
> I'm willing to say that if you did a "usability test" of RDFa and
> picked 10 average webby people off the street, you'd probably find that
> a large majority of people would misread the specs and do things
> incorrectly. Compounding all this is the "open world assumption" which
> conflicts with the idea of validation at all: I mean, maybe you really
> want to assert "dc:licenes".
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the cc-community