cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools

List archive

Re: [cc-devel] cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 10

From: kyaw thura maung <tamutharlay AT gmail.com>
To: cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [cc-devel] cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 10
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 04:18:43 +0630

Vol 94, issue 10

Kyaw

On Mar 15, 2014 4:17 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: cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 8 (kyaw thura maung)
2. Re: cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 9 (kyaw thura maung)

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

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 01:55:45 +0630
From: kyaw thura maung <tamutharlay AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [cc-devel] cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 8
To: cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID:
<CAMc+1XMOnUabckSR9rDm6hnvYzU0CuoZgarwW1o87-u9ML8hcg AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

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
> ***************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/attachments/20140315/2a0eefad/attachment-0001.html

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

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 04:16:59 +0630
From: kyaw thura maung <tamutharlay AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [cc-devel] cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 9
To: cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID:
<CAMc+1XOYGs9d1at1KCPp=-zBymyu7Ls=aR-KoDwfaaUpMZpicg AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

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
> ***************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/attachments/20140315/dc48f28c/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 10
****************************************

Re: [cc-devel] cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 10, kyaw thura maung, 03/14/2014