Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-metadata - Re: Creative Commons (fwd)

cc-metadata AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Aaron Swartz <me AT aaronsw.com>
  • To: Andy Powell <a.powell AT ukoln.ac.uk>
  • Cc: Stu Weibel <weibel AT oclc.org>
  • Cc: metadata AT creativecommons.org
  • Subject: Re: Creative Commons (fwd)
  • Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:18:30 -0600

I think it is important to agree how we should encode the same information in plain XML and HTML <meta> tags.

Why? What are your use cases for this? I'm concerned that further proliferation of encoding formats will just cause headaches for everyone.

My concern is that CC have defined dc:rights to be 'The cc:Agent who holds
the copyright on the resource'. This is somewhat at odds with our
definition of dc:rights because a simple personal or corporate 'name' is
not really 'Information about rights held in and over the resource'.

Yes, I'm somewhat concerned about this also. It was Eric Miller who proposed this, as I recall.

I would prefer to see dc:rights being used to carry the URI [...]

Why not a cc:license subproperty?

I also wonder if the content at the CC licence URIs should be plain text,
HTML (as now), RDF/XML or ODRL/XML (or some other form of rights markup
language) - or if content negotiatioon could be used to determine what is
served at those URIs.

We currently use content negotiation to decide between HTML and RDF/XML. We're not interested in any "rights markup language" designed for enforcement; all of our licenses explicitly prohibit technical enforcement measures.

Overall, I think it is important that we (DCMI) enter into some
constructive dialogue with the Creative Commons.

Agreed. Please don't mistake my terseness for a combative attitude; I'm quite interested in working together.

--
Aaron Swartz [http://www.aaronsw.com/] CC Metadata Lead
I'm presenting at SXSW in Austin tomorrow.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page