Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools

[Maarten Zeinstra <mz AT kl.nl>]

Hi Greg,

The semweb war is not our war. Good rights labelling is our war. ( I 
challenge anyone who thinks otherwise :) )

Although any winner of the semwar will influence the way we need to 
communicate rights information. It is best for CC to be neutral and provide 
help to all parties. Porting CCRel to microdata or mircoformats should not be 
too difficult. Making a xsd for ccrel is peanuts. I even worked on it with 
Nathan Yergler but our mails conversation about that suddenly seemed to stop 
in september 2010. I've included my draft that I communicated to Ben Adida, 
Mike Linksvayer and Nathan Yergler in 2010, although I haven't read it since. 

I can work on these issues, write and review drafts if only there is someone 
at CC-HQ that is able to actually publish/change/coordinate something.

You state that you want to add a page to the wiki with examples, but I think 
CC-HQ has tried and tested the Wiki solution for quite some time now and has 
to determine that hat way simply does not work. Those pages are a big 
unsupervised mess. Simply adding more information to those pages shows only 
that there is no determination of getting CC-technology structured and 
useful. To give an example, I don't think I ever found the link 
http://labs.creativecommons.org/2011/ccrel-guide before you said in your mail 
below.

Sorry for the rant, but this has been frustrating me for a while now. 

Now let's be pro active and practical: Greg if you can put that page 
http://labs.creativecommons.org/2011/ccrel-guide on a google doc, open it for 
all to comment and place that link on this mailing list.  I will give 
feedback, but others are welcome too, to which things I miss to be a proper 
advocate of CCRel. We'll then enter a draft phase where you let a select 
numbers of user edit that document, maybe drafting/porting a few other 
documents like an xsd and then we'll find a good place so user can actually 
find it.

How about that?

Cheers,

Maarten

Attachment: CC-REL in XSD.doc
Description: MS-Word document

On Jan 14, 2013, at 23:21 , Greg Grossmeier <greg AT grossmeier.net> wrote:

> Hi Maarten,
> 
> I agree.
> 
> Others might disagree with me (if you do, let me know): but I think it
> is too early to say which syntax has won the semweb war. Some may have
> opinions on which one(s) lost, but I don't know if we can say any one
> won.
> 
> I see this in the same way I see us "supporting" license metadata in
> files (eg pdfs). We don't say LibreOffice won and thus don't give
> examples of how to do it in MS Office (if there are such examples at
> all).
> 
> So, yes, we (I/someone in CC Tech) should rework much of
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Metadata (and related pages).
> 
> On a basic level, we should at least have 3 examples on some page
> marking up the same content with 3 different syntaxes.
> 
> Timeframe, not really.
> 
> I can put it on my short term list to create
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC_REL/Examples and outline the basic
> examples.
> 
> On the long term, updating
> http://labs.creativecommons.org/2011/ccrel-guide/ is probably wise.
> 
> I'll get back to you/the list with progress/more information.
> 
> Greg
> 
> <quote name="Maarten Zeinstra" date="2013-01-14" time="09:21:00 +0100">
>> Hi Greg,
>> 
>> Sure that gives me some more information about RDF and schema.org. 
>> 
>> However most institutions that deal with large metadata formats don't care 
>> much about presenting rights information easily to third parties. So it is 
>> usually already a lot of work to convince them to put proper rights 
>> information online.Rights information is usually the last requirement for 
>> web development. When such a party already adopted microdata or 
>> microformats than I cannot argue that they should refactor their metadata 
>> presentation layer because of something they regard as a small detail. 
>> Remember they are usually more than happy to puts rights information in 
>> DC:rights as a piece of text (in their own language).
>> 
>> That's why I think that we should start reworking/updating our examples of 
>> the implementation of CCRel to properly reflect its possibilities. We 
>> should build examples for microdata, microformats and XML (like I 
>> suggested almost 2 years ago) implementations of CCRel to properly use 
>> that standard.   
>> 
>> I am more than happy to assist in this, but I look toward you to manage 
>> that process. So do you have a timeframe for us/me?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Maarten
>> 
>> On Jan 11, 2013, at 18:38 , Greg Grossmeier <greg AT grossmeier.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello Maarten!
>>> 
>>> <quote name="mz AT kl.nl" date="2013-01-11" time="13:08:33 +0100">
>>>> Hello,
>>>> 
>>>> I always promote CCRel when an organisation asks me for advice when
>>>> switching to a CC based publishing model (mostly NGO, Non-profits and
>>>> governments).
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your hard work on this.
>>> 
>>>> But lately I have the feeling that our direction with
>>>> CCRel is getting outdated/outpaced by microdata initiatives like
>>>> schema.org. There is no version or implementation guide available for
>>>> CCRel available for microdata and microformats.
>>> 
>>> Two things:
>>> 
>>> 1) Yes, CCRel hasn't been updated in a long time.
>>> 
>>> 2) Correction: Schema.org isn't *only* microdata. That ontology is also
>>> perfectly usable (and officially supported) in RDFa 1.1 lite:
>>> http://blog.schema.org/2011/11/using-rdfa-11-lite-with-schemaorg.html
>>> 
>>> Also see:
>>> http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html
>>> "Our use of Microdata maps easily into RDFa Lite. In fact, all of
>>> Schema.org can be used with the RDFa Lite syntax as is. The RDFa Lite
>>> version of the markup looks almost isomorphic to the Microdata version."
>>> 
>>>> Also I see advices
>>>> from google that microdata, microformats and RDFa should not be mixed
>>>> in one webpage.
>>> 
>>> Correct. Which is why I am recommending to people to use RDFa when
>>> implementing Schema.org unless otherwise needed.
>>> 
>>>> If we do bring about new implementation guides for
>>>> other version than our rights description language will be bypassed in
>>>> favour for DC:rights. Something that is not desirable.
>>>> 
>>>> I believe we should start working on better descriptions of CCRel that
>>>> fits these other use cases.
>>>> 
>>>> What are your thoughts about these?
>>> 
>>> Agree and agree. We should make sure we update our documentation to be
>>> more explicit about how to handle this situation.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Did my clarification above help you in your current work?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Greg
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> | Greg Grossmeier            GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E |
>>> | http://grossmeier.net           A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |
>> 
> 
> -- 
> | Greg Grossmeier            GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E |
> | http://grossmeier.net           A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |