Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-metadata - Re: draft document on CC metadata in SMIL

cc-metadata AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Lucas Gonze <lgonze AT panix.com>
  • To: Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>
  • Cc: cc-metadata AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: draft document on CC metadata in SMIL
  • Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:57:22 -0500


On Wednesday, Oct 29, 2003, at 16:14 America/New_York, Mike Linksvayer wrote:

Lucas Gonze wrote:
> <smil>
> <head>
> <metadata id="meta-rdf">

I guess you didn't need the skip-over attribute because you put <metadata> as a child of <head>?

Actually because I reread the relevant portions of the the SMIL 1.0 spec and realized that we didn't need skip-content unless there was a chance of SMIL being embedded within the CC metadata, which is not likely.



xmlns:rdfs = "http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/PR-rdf-schema-19990303#";

http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#

check.


xmlns:dc = "http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core#";

http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/

check.


(the smil2.0 metadata example is a bit outdated)

<!-- Question: what is this namespace URL? Shouldn't the
namespace URL for SMIL metadata be something real? -->
xmlns:smilmetadata = "http://www.example.org/AudioVideo/.../smil-ns#"; >

I'd say chuck it. It is only used in the smil2.0 metadata example, nowhere else AFAIK, CC has no requirement for it, and the use in the example is kind of silly -- for the most part it duplicates information in the actual SMIL directives.

check.

One person commented to me along the lines of "what's the point of licensing a playlist/can a list of tracks even be copyrighted". I think it is key to point out as a motivating factor someplace in the document that SMIL can do much more than simple playlists. The first term that comes to me is client-side remixing, but maybe someone can think of a cooler phrase.

Um. Well, I could go into that, but I'd rather not do evangelism.

However, the individual components of a SMIL playlist most certainly are copyrightable, and the example needs to demonstrate how SMIL metadata can denote the license each component is under, e.g.,

<Work rdf:about="http://example.com/mp3/first.mp3";>
<license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/";>
</Work>

It doesn't really make sense to me to put assertions about external resources in the SMIL container. It's replicated data that will get out of sync. If the author of the container isn't the author of the external resource, the container author shouldn't speak for the external resource author. It creates a horrendous amount of work to maintain the metadata for every contained resource -- managing the list of URLs itself is itself not so easy. SMIL is like HTML with an additional time dimension for layout, and CC licensing of HTML doesn't tag components.

Next up is to set up the writing in a format that makes sense for typical CC users. It probably needs to be simpler, more readable, and in HTML instead of plain text.

By the way, we've already gotten a bit of buy-in for this CC SMIL project -- Alf Eaton added support for it to Facil-O-Smil. See http://www.pmbrowser.info/hublog/archives/000553.html.

- Lucas





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page