[cc-devel] CC 1.5 and embedding RDF

Wendy Bossons wbossons at MIT.EDU
Mon Dec 7 10:21:18 EST 2009


Why is the metainformation attribute, rel, never prefixed when it  
references "license"?

Example:
<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ 
us/">......</a>

Would it be incorrect to rephrase the above as:

<a rel="cc:license" xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ 
....">.......</a>

The reason I ask is the CC LIcense searchable as metadata within the  
application I'm working on. If it is to do that, I believe the license  
metadata should follow the same pattern as other metadata, such as

<span xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/...." href="http://purl.org/dc/dmcitype/ 
" rel="dc:type">work</span>


..\Wendy


Wendy Bossons
Web Developer

Contact Information:
wbossons at mit.edu
617-253-0770






On Dec 3, 2009, at 1:38 PM, Nathan Yergler wrote:

> Hi Wendy,
>
> The two blocks have (had) slightly different purposes; the first one
> describes a work with a particular license.  The latter only describes
> the license.
>
> That said, we no longer recommend embedding either in HTML pages.  We
> previously recommended embedding the former block in an HTML comment.
> While this approach had advantages over other available approaches
> when we developed it, it still has lots of problems, including over
> verbosity, invisibility to many parsers, and lack of standards
> compliance.  We're now recommending the use of RDFa to describe the
> license of a page.  See
> http://creativecommons.org/choose/results-one?license-code=by for an
> example of the HTML+RDFa needed to describe the license of a work, and
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/ccREL for more details.
>
> Let me know if you have any questions.
>
> Nathan
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Wendy Bossons <wbossons at mit.edu>  
> wrote:
>> What is the current recommendation on using the rdf that is  
>> returned by the
>> CC issue call?
>> For example, there are two rdf blocks in the response. Is one for  
>> backward
>> compatibility? How do you recommend using the response, e.g. if  
>> embedding
>> the rdf in the page, should one or both of the rdf blocks be used?
>> Example from response document:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> <rdf>
>>   <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://creativecommons.org/ns#"
>> xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>> xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>> xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#">
>>    <Work rdf:about="">
>>     <license
>> rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/"/>
>>    </Work>
>>
>>    <License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ 
>> us/">
>>     <permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ 
>> ns#Reproduction"/>
>>     <permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ 
>> ns#Distribution"/>
>>     <requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Notice"/>
>>     <requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ 
>> ns#Attribution"/>
>>     <permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks 
>> "/>
>>    </License>
>>   </rdf:RDF>
>> </rdf>
>> <licenserdf>
>>  <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://creativecommons.org/ns#"
>> xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
>>   <License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ 
>> us/">
>>     <permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ 
>> ns#Reproduction"/>
>>     <permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ 
>> ns#Distribution"/>
>>     <requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Notice"/>
>>     <requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ 
>> ns#Attribution"/>
>>     <permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks 
>> "/>
>>   </License>
>>  </rdf:RDF>
>> </licenserdf>
>>
>> Wendy Bossons
>> Web Developer
>> Contact Information:
>> wbossons at mit.edu
>> 617-253-0770
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cc-devel mailing list
>> cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1846 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/attachments/20091207/59b108f4/attachment.bin 


More information about the cc-devel mailing list