Hi David --
Not sure whether you're referring to feed licensing in general, or to
the problem of feeds with differing licenses and their relationships.
Can you clarify?
In either case, I think that requiring RDF in order to license a piece
of content would inhibit uptake. I think that's why most of the methods
described at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Syndication don't embed RDF
directly. Of course they are indirectly referencing RDF in the case of
Creative Commons licenses, so people who have RDF processors can
certainly apply them constructively. However the license relations are
not limited to RDF.
In general, on a discussion, design, and implementation level, trying to
deal with
<link rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/"/>
is a lot easier to deal with than
<!--
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://web.resource.org/cc/";
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#";>
<License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/";>
<permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Reproduction"/>
<permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Distribution"/>
<requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Notice"/>
<requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Attribution"/>
<permits
rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/DerivativeWorks"/></License></rdf:RDF>
-->
It's also, of course, much shorter, which becomes important when you
consider the use of per-entry licenses in synthetic feeds.
The same arguments apply to microformats, I think, which is why
rel-license exists... which might be relevant to GlobalClip.
John
M. David Peterson wrote:
Hey John,
This is obviously an important question that also relates to the
GlobalClip/Citation work that I Bruce D'Arcus (Cc'd) and myself are
working on to allow the ability to extract all of the relative
meta-data, including licensing information, as part of a copy/paste
operation [web page > Oo.o, Word, etc...].
Thus far I have been using the documentation on Creative Commons
(http://creativecommons.org/technology/metadata/index_html) that
covers this area quite extensively.
My question: Is there any reason why the RDF method described at the
above link should not be the method promoted as the de facto standard?
I completely understand your reasoning behind looking to find a
solution to correctly propagate and promote a particular method for
content producers in whom use multiple licenses dependent upon various
factors such as those you've mentioned. While using the rel attribute
seems to be an easy route, I'm not so sure that all of the various
distinctions can be properly handled by a single attribute. With this
in mind, it *seems* that given the existing RDF route promoted by
CreativeCommons covers all of the necessary pieces to allow for such
things, this would by far be the best route to promote to content
producers.
Thoughts?
On 6/6/06, John Panzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All,
Some sites offer two versions of feeds; one is a 'headline only'
version
and the other a 'full' version. Other than the content, a significant
distinction in some cases is the license applied to the data in each
feed.
(See http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Syndication.) For
example, the Engadget site offers a headline only feed with (the
equivalent
of a) by-sa Creative Commons license, while its full text is by-nc-sa,
prohibiting copying for commercial use.
Okay, so far so good. But let's say I'm an ad supported aggregator
(commercial use of content). I cannot therefore display the 'full'
feed and
I'll need to truncate or elide the content. However, I could display
the
'excerpt' feed with no problems. It would be nice if I could
discover the
related 'headlines' feed (which I can display with full fidelity) if the
user tries to subscribe to the 'full' feed through my ad supported
aggregator. However, right now, there's no automatic way to do that.
A [EMAIL PROTECTED] seems appropriate; I'm thinking of doing this:
<link rel="alternate" type="application/atom+xml" title="Headlines
Only"
href="..."/>
...and then relying on software to determine that (1) there's another
alternative version of the feed that (2) has a different license
(requires
fetching the feed of course) and (3) perhaps should be offered as an
alternative to the user, or used instead of blindly truncating text.
My major question is whether a "headline only" feed is an "alternate"
representation, or perhaps an "index" to the full feed, or perhaps a new
relation (or two) is needed.
Thoughts?
--
John Panzer
System Architect
http://abstractioneer.org
