Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools

[kyaw thura maung <tamutharlay AT gmail.com>]

Help

Kyaw

On Mar 14, 2014 10:41 PM, <cc-devel-request AT lists.ibiblio.org> wrote:

Send cc-devel mailing list submissions to
        cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        cc-devel-request AT lists.ibiblio.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        cc-devel-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of cc-devel digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Missing machine readable notice statement in all CC4.0
      licenses (Mike Linksvayer)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:03:37 -0700
From: Mike Linksvayer <ml AT gondwanaland.com>
Subject: Re: [cc-devel] Missing machine readable notice statement in
        all CC4.0 licenses
To: Maarten Zeinstra <mz AT kl.nl>, Tarmo Toikkanen
        <tarmo.toikkanen AT iki.fi>
Cc: "cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org devel" <cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org>,
        Antoine Isaac <aisaac AT few.vu.nl>
Message-ID: <53232859.6020908 AT gondwanaland.com">53232859.6020908 AT gondwanaland.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On 03/14/2014 02:04 AM, Maarten Zeinstra wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> Putting the implications of CC-rel aside you agree that we need to
> modify that document.
>
> If it were up to you where would you place that RDFa? You indicated
> that putting it on top of ?indicate if changes were made? is not
> ideal, I agree. But it is the best possible place on the page as it is
> now, if you ask me. Antoine and I also considered creating an empty
> span to communicate this RDF, however according to Antoine (who know
> way more about this than I) search engine consider them spam and might
> lower the ranking of CC?s pages.
>
> The ideal solution could be to change the explanation from:
>
> Attribution ? You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the
> license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any
> reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor
> endorses you or your use.
>
> to
>
> Attribution ? You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the
> license, and indicate if changes were made *while keeping any notices
> intact*. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way
> that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
>
> and add the RDFa to the newly added words. That is however something
> that the lawyers and community need to discuss.

Those added words would be the ideal place to add a cc:requires
cc:Notice annotation. I assume the current text was crafted very
carefully, so I've no opinion. Without the added words, maybe a span
around "do so".

Another option would be to remove the Notice statement from the RDF/XML
as well and change the schema such that cc:Notice is a subclass of
cc:Attribution. This would reflect how most people bundle the concepts,
including now on the deeds, and also outside CC -- some people call BSD
and MIT attribution licenses, though their only such requirement is to
retain copyright notices. I'd recommend getting more expert semweb
feedback before implementing this option.

Mike


> What do you guys think?
>
>
>
> Bottom line: as it stands now we provide two machine readable
> resources that claim different requirements of the licenses, that
> needs to be fixed.
>
> Best,
>
> Maarten
> --
> Kennisland
> | www.kennisland.nl <http://www.kennisland.nl/> | t +31205756720
> <tel://t%20+31205756720> | m +31643053919 <tel://m%20+31643053919> |
> @mzeinstra
>
> On 14 Mar 2014 at 6:25:14 , Mike Linksvayer (ml AT gondwanaland.com
> <mailto:ml AT gondwanaland.com>) wrote:
>
>> RDFa in the deed describes the corresponding license, and cc:Notice
>> is a cc:Requirement which is in the range of cc:requires which has a
>> domain of cc:License. A specific copyright notice would be pertinent
>> to a licensed work -- if this were called out with RDFa, perhaps
>> dc:rights or another refinement(s...there are potentially notices of
>> copyright, license, modification, warranty disclaimer)  thereof, it'd
>> go in the HTML published with the licensed work.
>>
>> If I were writing an automatic remixing tool I'd go with "...it may
>> be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or
>> hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information." --
>> hyperlink to the publisher's site, possibly including various notices
>> in languages I can't discern, and archive that page if you want to do
>> something extra. You can't count on anyone to properly annotate such
>> notices anyway, so a tool that looks for them can't be foolproof. You
>> can pretty much count on them not being properly annotated, as title
>> and creator name usually aren't despite being in the CC chooser
>> forever. IANAL etc.
>>
>> Maarten is right that the cc:Notice annotation ought be added back to
>> the deed. I might not add it to the text concerning indication of
>> modification as notice isn't specific only to that, but that's very
>> close to right. IMHO etc.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Tarmo Toikkanen
>> <tarmo.toikkanen AT iki.fi <mailto:tarmo.toikkanen AT iki.fi>> wrote:
>>
>>     As the 4.0 license allows for licensees to specify a custom
>>     copyright notice, which reusers must retain in any reproductions
>>     and redistributions, would the new cc:Notice tag actually contain
>>     this custom copyright notice, or is it for something else?
>>
>>     I for one would like to see the copyright notice be part of the
>>     license RDFa, since it?s unrealistic to expect reusers to retain
>>     information that can only be found by visually browsing the
>>     publisher?s site, and trying to locate such information (possibly
>>     in a foreign language, even).
>>
>>     --
>>     Tarmo Toikkanen
>>     tarmo AT iki.fi <mailto:tarmo AT iki.fi>
>>     http://tarmo.fi
>>
>>     On Thursday 13. 03 2014 at 1.30, Maarten Zeinstra wrote:
>>
>>>     Hi all,
>>>
>>>     Recently I?ve been working with Antoine Isaac (in cc) from
>>>     Europeana on the machine readability of the deed pages of the
>>>     4.0 licenses. Antoine noticed that the RDF attached to the
>>>     attribution license (and all other licenses) was not in sync
>>>     with the separate RDF file.
>>>
>>>     Compare:
>>>
>>>     the RDFa
>>>     of http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (using http://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/extract?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fcreativecommons.org%2Flicenses%2Fby%2F4.0%2F&format=turtle&rdfagraph=output&vocab_expansion=false&rdfa_lite=false&embedded_rdf=true&space_preserve=true&vocab_cache=true&vocab_cache_report=false&vocab_cache_refresh=false)
>>>     to
>>>     http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/rdf
>>>
>>>     The latter has a cc:requires cc:Notice which is missing in the
>>>     former.
>>>
>>>     The consequence of this is that machine readers could get
>>>     confused because there are contradicting sources. Also software
>>>     based on this standard could produce wrong information.
>>>
>>>     To fix this problem we propose to move the the rdfa of
>>>     cc:Attribution and add a cc:Notice RDFa tag. We?ve created a
>>>     pull request that details this change
>>>     here: https://github.com/creativecommons/creativecommons.org/pull/18
>>>
>>>     What do you guys think of this change request? Did we overlook
>>>     something and is this the most elegant way to fix this problem?
>>>
>>>     Many thanks to Antoine for pointing this out and working on a
>>>     fix with me.
>>>
>>>     Cheers,
>>>
>>>     Maarten
>>>
>>>     --
>>>     Kennisland
>>>     | www.kennisland.nl <http://www.kennisland.nl/> | t
>>>     +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     cc-devel mailing list
>>>     cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org>
>>>     http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     cc-devel mailing list
>>     cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org>
>>     http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/attachments/20140314/d6c4be7c/attachment.html

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list
cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel


End of cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 8
***************************************