Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-devel - Re: [cc-devel] RDF updated in liblicense repository; RFC on liblicense API change

cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jon Phillips <jon AT rejon.org>
  • To: Nathan Yergler <nathan AT creativecommons.org>
  • Cc: cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [cc-devel] RDF updated in liblicense repository; RFC on liblicense API change
  • Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 01:44:40 -0700


On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 11:12 -0700, Nathan Yergler wrote:
> I've completed reworking the gen_licenses.py script for liblicense and
> have committed updated versions of the RDF to the repository in the
> nyergler-rdf-sanity branch. I'd like to thank Scott and Jason for
> their work this summer that made this possible.

Here here!...heya guys, please take a look...once a cc'r, always a cc'r
(that is short for commoner ;)

> Going through their
> script actually revealed a couple of painful bugs in my own code, and
> I feel much better about the entire endeavor having re-worked things.

Cool...

> So a couple of additional changes were made:
>
> * There's now a cc:legalcode assertion that explicitly points to the
> legalcode URI for each license
> * Deprecated licenses have a cc:deprectedOn assertion to state when
> they were deprecated; this is an XSD:Date formatted value
> * Ported licenses have a cc:jurisdiction assertion; this is a URI
> pointing someplace a parser could (theoretically) retrieve additional
> information about the jurisdiction
> * dc:creator is now specified as a URI; again, the hope is that
> additional metadata could be specified @ that URI.
> * dc:publisher has been omitted.
>
> A bit more about that final item: after discussing things with people
> here at CC, we came to the conclusion that dc:publisher was pretty
> vague and probably not all that useful at this point. When you think
> about it, it's meta-metadata (metadata about the RDF itself, not the
> license), so I'm proposing we remove it. This also implies we remove
> the associated API from liblicense.
>
> I'd like to hear feedback on this final item in particular.
> Objections? Is it being used in a way I'm not aware of? Any
> feedback, etc welcome.

Scott? Jason? Pmiller? Unfortunately I have not been following as
closely as I'd like...but your suggestions make sense...Viva la
commiters!

Jon

> Thanks.
>
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> cc-devel mailing list
> cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
--
Jon Phillips

San Francisco, CA
USA PH 510.499.0894
jon AT rejon.org
http://www.rejon.org

MSN, AIM, Yahoo Chat: kidproto
Jabber Chat: rejon AT gristle.org
IRC: rejon AT irc.freenode.net

Please note: the contents of this email are not intended to be
legal advice nor should they be relied upon as or represented to be
legal advice. Jon Phillips does not represent any organization through
this email address.




  • Re: [cc-devel] RDF updated in liblicense repository; RFC on liblicense API change, Jon Phillips, 11/02/2007

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page