Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-metadata - Re: [cc-metadata] How to negate cc:permits, cc:prohibits, cc:requires?

cc-metadata AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Christoph LANGE <ch.lange AT jacobs-university.de>
  • To: cc-metadata AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [cc-metadata] How to negate cc:permits, cc:prohibits, cc:requires?
  • Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:32:58 +0100

Hi Nathan, hi all,

2009-08-20 19:55 Nathan Yergler <nathan AT creativecommons.org>:
> Sorry for such a delayed reply here. I'm working on cleaning out my
> reply queue and obviously this got stuck :).

even more delay here, sorry once more.

> As we've discussed off list, part of the answer here is better
> communication of how ccREL models a copyright license. ccREL assumes
> a baseline of copyright and then offers additional permissions beyond
> what's allowed under copyright. Those permissions may be further
> refined with prohibitions or requirements (ie, Commercial Use or
> Attribution). With this sort of model negating those individual terms
> doesn't make a lot of sense.

OK, thanks for that explanation; we should consider it in our spec.

> With respect to OWL, a volunteer began the process of "porting" the
> schema to OWL and at some point the process stalled. As far as I know
> there wasn't a technical issue, rather I think their need went away
> (or changed). If an OWL representation would be useful we'd
> definitely provide review and hosting for it (as a peer with the RDF
> Schema).

Maybe OWL is not even needed. My initial concern could be resolved if the
ranges of cc:permits and cc:prohibits were merged. IMHO it is due to the
history of the development of the CC licenses that e.g. you can only say that
reproduction is permitted, as prohibiting reproduction had probably never been
an issue for CC licenses.

But now consider that ccREL is possibly the only widely used license
vocabulary ever, and that people might want to reuse it for modeling licenses
that are somewhat different from those the original CC ones. So what if I
wanted to say that in _my_ illiberal license reproduction is prohibited? Then
it would be helpful to allow <:license cc:prohibits cc:Reproduction>. (Not
sure, though, if CC is willing to allow people to express such evil statements
;-)

Cheers,

Christoph

--
Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype duke4701

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page