[cc-community] Is there a validator for CC tagging?

Nathan Yergler 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"
>> class="small_license">
>>
>> to
>>
>> <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
>> http://microformats.org/profile/rel-license
>>
>    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:
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#relValues

>    (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
>
> http://ny-pictures.com/nyc/photo/topic/10421/Unisphere
>
>    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
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
>
>    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
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>



More information about the cc-community mailing list