discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work

["Nathan R. Yergler" <nathan AT creativecommons.org>]

The HTML generated by the URL you provided *does* contain metadata.
The HTML looks like this:

<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/";>
<img alt="Creative Commons License" style="border-width:0"
src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/88x31.png"; />
</a>
<br />This work is licensed under a
<a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/";>Creative Commons
Attribution 3.0 License</a>.

The rel="license" attribute on the link tags mark the target of the
link as the license.  This works as  a microformat
(http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-license) as well as RDFa
(http://rdfa.info).  If you provide any of the optional fields in the
chooser (http://creativecommons.org/license), those are also encoded
as RDFa.

This is a huge improvement over the old system (RDF in a comment)
because now the metadata is actually *part* of the document parse
tree, as opposed to being in something that your parser needs special
knowledge to extract and handle.

I'm not sure if the blog post Mike was thinking of ever materialized,
but I posted to the TechBlog about this last week
http://techblog.creativecommons.org/2007/06/21/enhanced-metadata-graduates-from-labs/

Hope that sheds some light on things; please let me know if you have
other questions.

Nathan

On 7/6/07, Gisle Hannemyr <gisle AT ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> As far as I able to tell, the current generator for CC licenses (ver. 3.0)
> does not generate /any/ metadata.
>
> I happen to think this is a bad thing, because when people copy and paste
> this code, there will be a number of CC-licenced works out there without
> proper metadata attached.
>
> For instance, for the unported "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License"):
> http://creativecommons.org/license/results-one?q_1=2&q_1=1&field_commercial=yes&field_derivatives=yes&field_jurisdiction=&field_format=&field_worktitle=&field_attribute_to_name=&field_attribute_to_url=&field_sourceurl=&field_morepermissionsurl=&lang=en_US&language=en_US&n_questions=3
>
> Back in April, there was a brief thread about this on the list titled
> "Where's the machine code?", that was answered by Mike Linksvayer (Tue Apr
> 17 20):
>
> > We're just not using the ugly RDF/XML-embedded-in-HTML-comments
> > anymore.  Explanatory blog post forthcoming.
>
> If one reads the FAQ, the official policy is that RDF is in use:
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Why_did_Creative_Commons_choose_to_use_the_RDF_format_for_its_metadata.3F
>
> That is also the impression one gets from these pagea:
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Metadata
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Implement_Metadata
>
>
> So waht is the current status on this.
> Has that  explanatory blog post come forth?
> --
> Gisle Hannemyr ( http://hannemyr.com/ )
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-metadata mailing list
> metadata AT creativecommons.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-metadata