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 11

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 11
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 04:20:29 +0630

Vol 94, Issue 11

Kyaw

On Mar 15, 2014 4:19 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 10 (kyaw thura maung)

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

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 04:18:43 +0630
From: kyaw thura maung <tamutharlay AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [cc-devel] cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 10
To: cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID:
<CAMc+1XNiborSHPsUBxrQrbX7827M=gz99M05N=f_1qpgMZ8YXg AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

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
> ****************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/attachments/20140315/07c44ea2/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 11
****************************************

Re: [cc-devel] cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 11, kyaw thura maung, 03/14/2014