Help Kyaw On Mar 14, 2014 10:41 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Send cc-devel mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cc-devel digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Missing machine readable notice statement in all CC4.0 > licenses (Mike Linksvayer) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:03:37 -0700 > From: Mike Linksvayer <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [cc-devel] Missing machine readable notice statement in > all CC4.0 licenses > To: Maarten Zeinstra <[email protected]>, Tarmo Toikkanen > <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected] devel" <[email protected]>, > Antoine Isaac <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On 03/14/2014 02:04 AM, Maarten Zeinstra wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > > > Putting the implications of CC-rel aside you agree that we need to > > modify that document. > > > > If it were up to you where would you place that RDFa? You indicated > > that putting it on top of ?indicate if changes were made? is not > > ideal, I agree. But it is the best possible place on the page as it is > > now, if you ask me. Antoine and I also considered creating an empty > > span to communicate this RDF, however according to Antoine (who know > > way more about this than I) search engine consider them spam and might > > lower the ranking of CC?s pages. > > > > The ideal solution could be to change the explanation from: > > > > Attribution ? You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the > > license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any > > reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor > > endorses you or your use. > > > > to > > > > Attribution ? You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the > > license, and indicate if changes were made *while keeping any notices > > intact*. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way > > that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. > > > > and add the RDFa to the newly added words. That is however something > > that the lawyers and community need to discuss. > > Those added words would be the ideal place to add a cc:requires > cc:Notice annotation. I assume the current text was crafted very > carefully, so I've no opinion. Without the added words, maybe a span > around "do so". > > Another option would be to remove the Notice statement from the RDF/XML > as well and change the schema such that cc:Notice is a subclass of > cc:Attribution. This would reflect how most people bundle the concepts, > including now on the deeds, and also outside CC -- some people call BSD > and MIT attribution licenses, though their only such requirement is to > retain copyright notices. I'd recommend getting more expert semweb > feedback before implementing this option. > > Mike > > > > What do you guys think? > > > > > > > > Bottom line: as it stands now we provide two machine readable > > resources that claim different requirements of the licenses, that > > needs to be fixed. > > > > Best, > > > > Maarten > > -- > > Kennisland > > | www.kennisland.nl <http://www.kennisland.nl/> | t +31205756720 > > <tel://t%20+31205756720> | m +31643053919 <tel://m%20+31643053919> | > > @mzeinstra > > > > On 14 Mar 2014 at 6:25:14 , Mike Linksvayer ([email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>) wrote: > > > >> RDFa in the deed describes the corresponding license, and cc:Notice > >> is a cc:Requirement which is in the range of cc:requires which has a > >> domain of cc:License. A specific copyright notice would be pertinent > >> to a licensed work -- if this were called out with RDFa, perhaps > >> dc:rights or another refinement(s...there are potentially notices of > >> copyright, license, modification, warranty disclaimer) thereof, it'd > >> go in the HTML published with the licensed work. > >> > >> If I were writing an automatic remixing tool I'd go with "...it may > >> be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or > >> hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information." -- > >> hyperlink to the publisher's site, possibly including various notices > >> in languages I can't discern, and archive that page if you want to do > >> something extra. You can't count on anyone to properly annotate such > >> notices anyway, so a tool that looks for them can't be foolproof. You > >> can pretty much count on them not being properly annotated, as title > >> and creator name usually aren't despite being in the CC chooser > >> forever. IANAL etc. > >> > >> Maarten is right that the cc:Notice annotation ought be added back to > >> the deed. I might not add it to the text concerning indication of > >> modification as notice isn't specific only to that, but that's very > >> close to right. IMHO etc. > >> > >> Mike > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Tarmo Toikkanen > >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> > >> As the 4.0 license allows for licensees to specify a custom > >> copyright notice, which reusers must retain in any reproductions > >> and redistributions, would the new cc:Notice tag actually contain > >> this custom copyright notice, or is it for something else? > >> > >> I for one would like to see the copyright notice be part of the > >> license RDFa, since it?s unrealistic to expect reusers to retain > >> information that can only be found by visually browsing the > >> publisher?s site, and trying to locate such information (possibly > >> in a foreign language, even). > >> > >> -- > >> Tarmo Toikkanen > >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >> http://tarmo.fi > >> > >> On Thursday 13. 03 2014 at 1.30, Maarten Zeinstra wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> Recently I?ve been working with Antoine Isaac (in cc) from > >>> Europeana on the machine readability of the deed pages of the > >>> 4.0 licenses. Antoine noticed that the RDF attached to the > >>> attribution license (and all other licenses) was not in sync > >>> with the separate RDF file. > >>> > >>> Compare: > >>> > >>> the RDFa > >>> of http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (using > http://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/extract?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fcreativecommons.org%2Flicenses%2Fby%2F4.0%2F&format=turtle&rdfagraph=output&vocab_expansion=false&rdfa_lite=false&embedded_rdf=true&space_preserve=true&vocab_cache=true&vocab_cache_report=false&vocab_cache_refresh=false > ) > >>> to > >>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/rdf > >>> > >>> The latter has a cc:requires cc:Notice which is missing in the > >>> former. > >>> > >>> The consequence of this is that machine readers could get > >>> confused because there are contradicting sources. Also software > >>> based on this standard could produce wrong information. > >>> > >>> To fix this problem we propose to move the the rdfa of > >>> cc:Attribution and add a cc:Notice RDFa tag. We?ve created a > >>> pull request that details this change > >>> here: > https://github.com/creativecommons/creativecommons.org/pull/18 > >>> > >>> What do you guys think of this change request? Did we overlook > >>> something and is this the most elegant way to fix this problem? > >>> > >>> Many thanks to Antoine for pointing this out and working on a > >>> fix with me. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Maarten > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Kennisland > >>> | www.kennisland.nl <http://www.kennisland.nl/> | t > >>> +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> cc-devel mailing list > >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> cc-devel mailing list > >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel > >> > >> > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/attachments/20140314/d6c4be7c/attachment.html > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > cc-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel > > > End of cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 8 > *************************************** >
_______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
