discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work

[Sylvain Zimmer <sylvain AT sylvainzimmer.com>]

Hi again !

We're releasing our new tools for artists soon, so let me paste here 
what code we plan to give to our artists for their album pages.

http://www.artistwebsite.com/my_album.html would contain :

<a rel='license' 
href='http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/fr/'><img 
border='0' alt='Creative Commons' 
src='http://img.jamendo.com/ext/cc0.gif'></a>
<a rel="rdfs:seeAlso" href='http://www.jamendo.com/album/126/'><img 
border='0' alt='Jamendo : Free music' 
src='http://img.jamendo.com/ext/jamendo1.png'></a>

The rdfs:seeAlso page (http://www.jamendo.com/album/126/) will include a 
<link> to a proper .rdf file we host and update for the artist.

The rel=license will ensure that google/yahoo know that there is CC 
content (even if it's only linked) on this page.

Is that okay?

I think I considered all the ideas in our discussion here so let me know 
if you have some more comments about this! I prefer not to tell all our 
artists to change the code afterwards ;-)

Thanks again!

Sylvain
www.jamendo.com




Mike Linksvayer wrote:

> On Fri, 2005-12-23 at 12:57 +0100, Sylvain Zimmer wrote:
>  
>
> > We use this for music albums, so there's one <Work> for each track, that 
> > usually means a lot of RDF...
> >
> > Moreover, I've got some problems with utf8/iso8859. Currently, we give 
> > our artists the utf8-encoded rdf and tell them to put it in their 
> > websites. But as most of their pages are in iso8859, there are some 
> > validation issues.
> >
> > Example : 
> > http://validator.creativecommons.org/validate.py?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpcmontigny.free.fr%2Fliens%2Fliens.html&submit=Parse+URI
> >
> > We can't ask them whether their pages are in utf8 or iso or whatever, 
> > it's too complicated.
> >    
>
> The validator should probably be more tolerant in this respect, at least
> providing a warning instead of blowing up.  If you copy & paste the RDF
> into http://w3.org/RDF/Validator it is ok.
>
> You could aggressively escape to get around the encoding problem
> altogether.
>
>  
>
> > So it would be ideal to host the rdf ourselves and 
> > just give them a simple HTML bit linking to it.
> >    
>
> I can see the advantages of hosting the RDF yourself regardless of
> encoding.
>
>  
>
> > We can't really use the 
> > a rel=license I think, because it's not the page that's CC-licensed, 
> > it's the album... right ?
> >    
>
> It isn't precise or accurate, but it is useful, telling Yahoo and Google
> that CC licensed content is to be found here, which indeed it can, just
> maybe not the page itself.
>
>  
>
> > I don't really mind yahoo/google not supporting a rel=meta currently, as 
> > long as it's an official way to do it (so they should add support for it 
> > in the future.).
> >
> > So what are your thoughts on this ? Is a rel=meta okay ? Can you think 
> > of a better way to solve our problem ?
> >    
>
> Well, a solution that will probably never be read is a non-solution
> obviously.  I suspect rel="meta" is that.  Another problem is that <a
> rel="meta"> is human readable/clickable, and it isn't much help to link
> directly to an RDF file in this way.  Or were you planning to link to a
> page that itself embeds or <link>s to RDF? (Looking again at your
> original post, I see style="display:none", hmm.)
>
> One possibly useful solution would be to begin using
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-rdfa-syntax
>
> Maybe   
> <a rel="rdfs:seeAlso" href="http://jamendo.com/foo/bar.html";>xyz</a>
>
> Or if you want it to be invisible
> <link rel="rdfs:seeAlso" href="http://jamendo.com/foo/bar.rdf"/>
>
>