Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools

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

Vol 94,  Issue 9

Kyaw

On Mar 15, 2014 1:55 AM, <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)
   2. Re: cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 7 (kyaw thura maung)


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

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 12:22:14 -0700
From: Mike Linksvayer <ml AT gondwanaland.com>
Subject: Re: [cc-devel] Missing machine readable notice statement in
        all     CC4.0 licenses
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac AT few.vu.nl>
Cc: "cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org devel" <cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID:
        <CAGSmzpQcqn2y_i9mb+Sk-f9WrJKaHX5_1PPCS_LxBCDHzx66+w AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac AT few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi Mike, all
>
> (I'm not sure this mail will reach cc-devel so please forward if needed!)
>

I'm quoting in full in case it doesn't.


> Some first two cents by a "semantic web expert"...
>

Thank you very much! No need for scare quotes, I was completely serious in
wanting feedback from experts. I only know enough to be misinformed. :)


> 1. If cc:Notice was a subclass of cc:Attribution, then it would be
> semantically possible to remove cc:Attribution (because it's implied by the
> presence of cc:Notice) but not cc:Notice (because it's not implied by the
> presence of cc:Attribution).
>
> 2. I'm not sure I would recommend removing statements because there are
> sub-class axioms. This is ok in principle, but in practice many data
> consumers do not apply the sort of reasoning tools that would enable to
> find the "implied" statements. I guess this is especially true for
> consumers of CC(rel) data. So I would still recommend to keep all important
> statements explicit in the RDF data and the corresponding mark-up.
>
> 3. I am raising points 1 and 2 just for the sake of the argument. Because
> in fact with the current data it wouldn't work, from a formal perspective.
> The resources cc:Notice and cc:Attribution are not represented as
> (RDFS/OWL) classes in the data, they are 'instances'.
> The statements are indeed of the form:
> (i) aLicense cc:requires cc:Notice .
> (ii) aLicense cc:requires cc:Attribution .
> If one defines the axiom
> cc:Notice rdfs:subClass cc:Attribution
> Then it does not help to infer any additional statement from the statement
> (i).
> One would have to use more complex axioms, possibly even outside of basic
> RDFS/OWL expressivity.
>

Ok, subclass idea was half-baked and wrong. Discard it, but the other half
would be to change the description of cc:Attribution to include retaining
notices. How cc:Notice is described would be irrelevant, for it would not
be used at all in describing any CC licenses.* There are no CC licenses
described as requiring only one of Notice or Attribution, and the concepts
are generally mingled in descriptions and understandings of the licenses,
including on the deed. There's no reason for both. The
description-of-a-license part of CCREL isn't intended to be precise, and
maybe it is too precise in this case, for no gain.

Further half-baked, which might mean 1/4 or 3/4 or 0 or 1 or something else
depending on operation applied...
Mike

* At one time CC published deeds and metadata for a few software licenses,
and those required only cc:Notice not cc:Attribution eg
http://web.archive.org/web/20100904085343/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/MIT/rdfbut
those now redirect to the relevant OSI and FSF pages and to my
knowledge nobody ever used the RDF license descriptions (actually you can
almost say that about the descriptions of CC licenses, except internally).
Anyway cc:Notice could sit there in the CC schema, and someone could figure
out what relationship to make between it and cc:Attribution and add that to
the schema if anyone really wanted to.




> Kind regards
>
> Antoine
>
>
>
> On 3/14/14 5:03 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>
>> 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/ffb351e2/attachment-0001.html

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

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 01:55:31 +0630
From: kyaw thura maung <tamutharlay AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [cc-devel] cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 7
To: cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID:
        <CAMc+1XMD93Vn1v81PTtV2==eofmNOvMo5QGbwpGuE_NRgd1oRA AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Help

Kyaw
On Mar 14, 2014 3:34 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)
>    2. Re: Missing machine readable notice statement in all CC4.0
>       licenses (Maarten Zeinstra)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 22:25:13 -0700
> From: Mike Linksvayer <ml AT gondwanaland.com>
> Subject: Re: [cc-devel] Missing machine readable notice statement in
>         all     CC4.0 licenses
> To: 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:
>         <CAGSmzpSQ3GueNGRDhEj_sTujb6HJ9j=
> dTNxuROO7SP+JP-E2BQ AT mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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
> >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
> > 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 | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/attachments/20140313/cc6b993a/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:04:18 +0100
> From: Maarten Zeinstra <mz AT kl.nl>
> Subject: Re: [cc-devel] Missing machine readable notice statement in
>         all CC4.0 licenses
> To: Mike Linksvayer <ml AT gondwanaland.com>, 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: <etPan.5322c612.4516dde9.1759 AT MacBook-Air-Maarten.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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.
>
> 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?|?t +31205756720?|?m +31643053919?|
> @mzeinstra
>
> On 14 Mar 2014 at 6:25:14 , Mike Linksvayer (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>
> 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
> 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?|?t +31205756720?|?m +31643053919?|
> @mzeinstra
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/attachments/20140314/2daafc27/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 7
> ***************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/attachments/20140315/69571aab/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 9
***************************************