Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools

[Dan Mills <dan AT creativecommons.org>]

Sorry, maybe I missed something. Where does it say that? The links I found (and quoted below) were pretty clear that the URL is whatever the author would like it to be.

Dan

On Thursday, June 13, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Jonas Öberg wrote:

Dan,

I appreciate your input but respectfully disagree on this, since they visually (if not semantically) associate the URL with the author, and not the work (where the standard says it should refer to the work). However, it doesn't feel as if we'll get much further in this discussion. :-)

Jonas

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Dan Mills <dan AT creativecommons.org> wrote:

Sure. Though those are just as valid, since the URL can really point to anything.

Dan

On Thursday, June 13, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Jonas Öberg wrote:

Dan,

Yes, the only issue I see now is that the examples associate the URL with the person, not the work. We do not need go change the semantics of the standard, but we should rework some examples and use cases, as well as clarify the intended use.

Jonas

On 13 Jun 2013 20:52, "Dan Mills" <dan AT creativecommons.org> wrote:

Hi Jonas,

I think that should already be possible, no?

http://creativecommons.org/ns says that cc:attributionURL is:

"The URL the creator of a Work would like used when attributing re-use."

http://labs.creativecommons.org/2011/ccrel-guide/ says:

"The attribution URL is important when you want to indicate what URL re-users of your CC-licensed work should link to when they attribute your work."

It's whatever the author wants it to be, so it could be a link to the work.

Dan

On Thursday, June 13, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Jonas Öberg wrote:

Hi Maarten,

I think it's reasonable to just clarify in the ccREL standard that the two are synonymous.

For the RDFa generated, I think that the attributionURL should be associated with the work and not the author. Ie.,

This <a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" href="http://jonasoberg.net/this-work" rel="cc:attributionURL">work</a> by <span xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#"

property="cc:attributionName">Jonas Öberg</span>

However, I don't think it's reasonable to make any changes to the chooser output without at the same time revising the examples in the ccREL standard document.

So what I'm saying is that having a process for how we record "change requests" to the standard and how the revision process look like is probably more important than correcting these specific issues.

Jonas

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Maarten Zeinstra <mz AT kl.nl> wrote:

So Jonas what do you propose.

Would it be better to adjust XMP output of the chooser?

Cheers,

Maarten
--
Kennisland | www.kennisland.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra

On Jun 11, 2013, at 18:36 , Nathan Yergler <nathan AT yergler.net> wrote:

> That's a great point, the formatting does conflate the creator and the
> work a bit.
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Jonas Öberg <jonas AT coyote.org> wrote:
>> Hi Nathan!
>>
>> I'd be hard pressed to argue semantics with one of the ccREL authors :-)
>>
>> The specification is clear that attributionURL is "the URL to link to
>> when providing attribution", which is a reference to the license
>> requirement. I think what confuses it is that this is most often used,
>> even in the ccREL examples, to refer to what can be interpreted as the
>> URL of the attributionName. For example in the RDFa:
>>
>> This work by <a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#"
>> href="http://jonasoberg.net/" property="cc:attributionName"
>> rel="cc:attributionURL">Jonas Öberg</a> is licensed under a <a
>> rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en_US">Creative
>> Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License</a>.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Jonas
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Nathan Yergler <nathan AT yergler.net> wrote:
>>> How do you believe a web statement differs from the attribution URL,
>>> functionally?
>>>
>>> IIRC a "web statement" is supposed to be a web accessible resource
>>> that contains information about the rights, permissions, etc related
>>> to the work. CC licenses state that the attribution URL only needs to
>>> be cited with the work when it includes copyright information or
>>> license notice (4(b)(iii) in
>>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode). So both need to
>>> be web-accessible resources that contain license, copyright, or rights
>>> information. I believe that was the basis for treating them as
>>> synonyms.
>>>
>>> NRY
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Jonas Öberg <jonas AT coyote.org> wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> I was just made aware that in the license chooser, when a user enters
>>>> a URL to attribute the work to, this is stored in different properties
>>>> in the XMP and RDFa formats. In XMP, it's stored in
>>>> xapRights:WebStatement and in RDFa it's stored in cc:attributionURL. I
>>>> understand the difference between the two, but it's not clear to me
>>>> why there is a difference between how the information from the license
>>>> chooser is encoded in the various formats.
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that there ought to be a separate field that allows a
>>>> user to specify a WebStatement, and that the URL to attribute the work
>>>> to should be encoded in the cc:attributionURL regardless of what
>>>> format is used.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Jonas
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cc-devel mailing list
>>>> cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org
>>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
> _______________________________________________
> cc-devel mailing list
> cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel

_______________________________________________

cc-devel mailing list

cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org

http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel