Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools

["Nathan Yergler" <nathan AT creativecommons.org>]

Just a quick note to let everyone know that I've completed the RDF
work and merged the branch back to the trunk (as of r7939).  A few
notes:

* No more gen_licenses.py, no more licenses (in this Subversion
module): the RDF is now maintained in the license.rdf module in
Subversion, linked into liblicense with an svn:external.  The tools
for updating it [will] live there as well.
* dc:hasVersion is now dcterms:hasVersion
* dc:isBasedOn is now dc:source
* dc:isReplacedBy is now dcterms:isReplacedBy
* As proposed in my earlier message, I've removed the Publisher
metadata and API (silence is assent)

Thanks again to Scott and Jason for laying the groundwork for this.

Nathan

On 10/31/07, Nathan Yergler <nathan AT creativecommons.org> 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.  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.
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Nathan
>