[cc-devel] ccREL question

Maarten Zeinstra mz at kl.nl
Thu Mar 12 11:31:14 EDT 2015

Thanks Mike!

So you would actually advise not using the CC:License term in this case?

Also a more general comment towards the CC Global. Do you have any interest in structurally pushing/updating CCrel or is it in your interests to not further that data standard?


Kennisland | www.kl.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra

> On 11 Mar 2015, at 5:56 , Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
> On 03/09/2015 05:34 AM, Maarten Zeinstra wrote:
>> What does the list suggest we do in this project? Should we adopt
>> CC:License or is it better to use odrs:RightsStatement or odrl:policy?
> dcterms:RightsStatement
> IIRC CC stuck with license/License for PDM when that was introduced so
> that the (mostly theoretical, and likely doing regexps on a page rather
> than parsing RDF) consumer would not have to know about another
> property/class. But arguably CC REL ought have been (or ought be still)
> updated such that cc:license is a subproperty of dcterms:rights rather
> than dcterms:license and cc:License a subclass of
> dcterms:RightsStatement rather than dcterms:LicenseDocument.
> Again IIRC dcterms:RightsStatement and LicenseDocument did not exist
> until 2008. Had they existed in 2002, I guess the vocabulary CC
> introduced (later branded as CC REL) would have used one of them
> directly rather than introducing cc:License. Which brings us back to the
> answer to your question.
> Mike
> p.s. I'm using dcterms: for precision and because I note the EDM
> document does, though one of my super tiny pet peeves
> <http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2014/02/04/one-dc/> concerns never using
> DCES 1.1 for anything (all its terms are mirrored in dcterms) and thus
> only/always using dc: prefix for http://purl.org/dc/terms/
> _______________________________________________
> cc-devel mailing list
> cc-devel at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel

More information about the cc-devel mailing list