discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work

["Shelley Powers" <shelleyp AT burningbird.net>]

<snip>

> >
> > I do agree with both causing confusion -- and you now have both in one
> > page
> > at my weblog.
>
> This *really* gets on my wick. Say this three times. The example is the
> spec. The example is the spec. The example is the spec. Either, right
> now, someone from the Dublin Core team, and someone from the w3c rdf WG
> comes together and fixes this once and for all, or we all accept the
> fact that the common usage is the proper one, even if it's not. If the
> examples are wrong, they get more and more right every day just by dint
> of usage.
>
> It's the job of the RDF WG to give steerage. Loudly, clearly, and
> without confusion. If people are following the spec examples, rather
> than reading the WG hive mind, then it's the WG's fault.
>

Agree, Ben. But I'm in a bit of a position because I wanted to include CC
RDF/XML in my PostCon documents, but can't. Reason why is that I use a
string literal for dc:creator, and not the structure. But, if we can't
modify the CC RDF/XML because it could invalidate the license (and that's
the better approach -- no confusion this way), then I have to modify my
stuff to fit. And I don't want to.

However, reading your mod_cc module, I see that you've dropped this out
altogether. I could do the same, I suppose.

Aaron, Lisa, CC folks question: if we include the cc:License information as
Ben demonstrated in the RSS module
(http://www.benhammersley.com/mod_cc.html), this would still be legitimate
CC license RDF/XML, wouldn't it? And I could keep my dc:rights and
dc:creator as currently defined in my vocabulary use of same, which matches
the DC documentation of same?


> >>> For instance, I don't want my photos used within 'racist' content. So
> >>> I might add a prohibition against 'racist use'. Simple thing to
> >>> modify
> >>> the RDF/XML, but what will this do to the validity of the license?
> >>
> >> Obviously you'll need a new license with this prohibition. The license
> >> characteristics are descriptive.
> >
> > True, which means I can't modify the RDF/XML for prohibits without
> > getting
> > the CC to agree to the new license type.
>
> or to invent your own license and give it a URI all of its own. We can
> do that, without CC giving a damn, right? (as long as we don't use the
> CC logo etc.)
>

Me no want go there. Me scared of big bad law peoples. Me hear big bad law
peoples eat dogs and small children.

Shelley