Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-metadata - Re: [cc-metadata] Where's the machine code?

cc-metadata AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Gisle Hannemyr" <gisle AT ifi.uio.no>
  • To: cc-metadata AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [cc-metadata] Where's the machine code?
  • Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 09:45:36 +0200 (CEST)

Thank you for your prompt reply.
And yes, I have other questions.

First, I understand that the rel="license" is metadata, and that it works
as a microformat. (Btw. the rel="license" was also used in prior versions
of the machine code, i.e. those with RDF in HTML-comments.)

The bit I am asking about, is the bit of metadata that explicitly told the
machine what was permitted, prohibited, and required.

I must admit that I am not familiar with RFDa.
I did visit http://rdfa.info , as well as read through
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-rdfa-primer/ , but I have a lot to learn.
RDFa looks like a good idea, and I think I understand how one can use RFDa
to express the same thing as one expressed in commented RDF before.

My problem is that I can't find any RFDa in the current machine readable
cc licenses.

The W3C documents states "We note that RDFa makes use of XML namespaces."
In the (X)HTML license templates generated by the
chooser ( http://creativecommons.org/license ). Yet, I can't see any use
of namespaces in the current licenses.

You also write: "If you provide any of the optional fields in the chooser
(...) those are also encoded as RDFa."

I tried to generate a license with optional fields (by-nc-nd) - and this
is how the machine readable version looks like:

<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/";>
<img alt="Creative Commons License" style="border-width:0"
src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-nd/3.0/88x31.png"; />
</a>
<br />
This work is licensed under a
<a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/";>Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License</a>.

I don't understand what part of this code that is supposed to be RDFa.

As I said, I am not familiar with RDFa, so this may be due to my
incomplete understanding of this.

=====Original Message =====
Nathan R. Yergler wrote:
> 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/ )





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page