[cc-metadata] a rel=meta for license embedding ?

Sylvain Zimmer sylvain at sylvainzimmer.com
Tue Dec 27 07:54:26 EST 2005


Hi again !

We're releasing our new tools for artists soon, so let me paste here 
what code we plan to give to our artists for their album pages.

http://www.artistwebsite.com/my_album.html would contain :

<a rel='license' 
href='http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/fr/'><img 
border='0' alt='Creative Commons' 
src='http://img.jamendo.com/ext/cc0.gif'></a>
<a rel="rdfs:seeAlso" href='http://www.jamendo.com/album/126/'><img 
border='0' alt='Jamendo : Free music' 
src='http://img.jamendo.com/ext/jamendo1.png'></a>

The rdfs:seeAlso page (http://www.jamendo.com/album/126/) will include a 
<link> to a proper .rdf file we host and update for the artist.

The rel=license will ensure that google/yahoo know that there is CC 
content (even if it's only linked) on this page.

Is that okay?

I think I considered all the ideas in our discussion here so let me know 
if you have some more comments about this! I prefer not to tell all our 
artists to change the code afterwards ;-)

Thanks again!

Sylvain
www.jamendo.com




Mike Linksvayer wrote:

>On Fri, 2005-12-23 at 12:57 +0100, Sylvain Zimmer wrote:
>  
>
>>We use this for music albums, so there's one <Work> for each track, that 
>>usually means a lot of RDF...
>>
>>Moreover, I've got some problems with utf8/iso8859. Currently, we give 
>>our artists the utf8-encoded rdf and tell them to put it in their 
>>websites. But as most of their pages are in iso8859, there are some 
>>validation issues.
>>
>>Example : 
>>http://validator.creativecommons.org/validate.py?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpcmontigny.free.fr%2Fliens%2Fliens.html&submit=Parse+URI
>>
>>We can't ask them whether their pages are in utf8 or iso or whatever, 
>>it's too complicated.
>>    
>>
>
>The validator should probably be more tolerant in this respect, at least
>providing a warning instead of blowing up.  If you copy & paste the RDF
>into http://w3.org/RDF/Validator it is ok.
>
>You could aggressively escape to get around the encoding problem
>altogether.
>
>  
>
>>So it would be ideal to host the rdf ourselves and 
>>just give them a simple HTML bit linking to it.
>>    
>>
>
>I can see the advantages of hosting the RDF yourself regardless of
>encoding.
>
>  
>
>>We can't really use the 
>>a rel=license I think, because it's not the page that's CC-licensed, 
>>it's the album... right ?
>>    
>>
>
>It isn't precise or accurate, but it is useful, telling Yahoo and Google
>that CC licensed content is to be found here, which indeed it can, just
>maybe not the page itself.
>
>  
>
>>I don't really mind yahoo/google not supporting a rel=meta currently, as 
>>long as it's an official way to do it (so they should add support for it 
>>in the future.).
>>
>>So what are your thoughts on this ? Is a rel=meta okay ? Can you think 
>>of a better way to solve our problem ?
>>    
>>
>
>Well, a solution that will probably never be read is a non-solution
>obviously.  I suspect rel="meta" is that.  Another problem is that <a
>rel="meta"> is human readable/clickable, and it isn't much help to link
>directly to an RDF file in this way.  Or were you planning to link to a
>page that itself embeds or <link>s to RDF? (Looking again at your
>original post, I see style="display:none", hmm.)
>
>One possibly useful solution would be to begin using
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-rdfa-syntax
>
>Maybe   
><a rel="rdfs:seeAlso" href="http://jamendo.com/foo/bar.html">xyz</a>
>
>Or if you want it to be invisible
><link rel="rdfs:seeAlso" href="http://jamendo.com/foo/bar.rdf"/>
>
>  
>



More information about the cc-metadata mailing list