| Thanks Jonas,
I would like an external xsd expert to have a look at it as well. I will try and see if I can find someone who can confirm the accuracy of the xsd.
next step is to create a couple of examples how to implement this in xml files. I would suggest to create a simple explaining xml example and one for OAI-PMH, a standard in the cultural sector. We can add that to the ccrel guide document on git.
What do you think?
Cheers,
Maarten Hi Maarten!
I had a look over the XSD proposal and I think it's overall good. It's an accurate representation of the current state of CC-Rel. I have some concerns over CC-Rel itself (for a later time), but not over the XSD :-)
Jonas
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Jonas Öberg <jonas AT ffkp.se> wrote:
Hi Maarten!
I had a look over the XSD proposal and I think it's overall good. It's an accurate representation of the current state of CC-Rel. I have some concerns over CC-Rel itself (for a later time), but not over the XSD :-)
Jonas On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Maarten Zeinstra <mz AT kl.nl> wrote:
Hi Jonas,
Could you also look at the xsd proposal that Greg put up in a Google Doc? I would consider that low hanging fruit.
Maybe we should create a large group/committee/task force of tech CC'ers that goes through the process of evaluating all CC tech documents and pages. Adopting an agile method with sprints of two weeks where we polish one part of CC-tech at each sprint. That way we could be able to refactor some of the parts of CC's infrastructure, re-familarize ourselves with some of these pages and create a structure as to not lose focus or get lost in the forest of projects and pages.
Cheers,
Maarten
Hi Greg, and everyone else, and thanks to Maarten for bring this issue to the table!
I echo Maartens sentiment that there is a lack of structured information about CC's technology -- including information about which tools are retired and which are not. To give another example; the liblicense wiki page doesn't say anything about liblicense being retired, but in practice, the last work on this was in early 2009. Clearly, we have work to do on updating our resources!
As some of you know, I have a great deal of interest in metadata for licensing, attribution and provenance, and I'd be happy to put some work into this to help move things forward.
I'd say we're about three years behind on a Creative Commons Technology Summit! :-)
All the best, Jonas
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:21 PM, 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 |
_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list
cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
--
-- Jonas Öberg VD, Föreningen fri kultur och programvara Regional Coordinator - Europe, Creative Commons
Phone: +46-31-7802161
--
Jonas Öberg, Executive Director, Föreningen fri kultur och programvara (FFKP)
Phone: +46 31 780 21 61 ---- Webb: http://ffkp.se/
Free Society Conference and Nordic Summit -||- http://fscons.org/
|
