Just a quick note to let everyone know that I've completed the RDF work and merged the branch back to the trunk (as of r7939). A few notes:
* No more gen_licenses.py, no more licenses (in this Subversion module): the RDF is now maintained in the license.rdf module in Subversion, linked into liblicense with an svn:external. The tools for updating it [will] live there as well. * dc:hasVersion is now dcterms:hasVersion * dc:isBasedOn is now dc:source * dc:isReplacedBy is now dcterms:isReplacedBy * As proposed in my earlier message, I've removed the Publisher metadata and API (silence is assent) Thanks again to Scott and Jason for laying the groundwork for this. Nathan On 10/31/07, Nathan Yergler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've completed reworking the gen_licenses.py script for liblicense and > have committed updated versions of the RDF to the repository in the > nyergler-rdf-sanity branch. I'd like to thank Scott and Jason for > their work this summer that made this possible. Going through their > script actually revealed a couple of painful bugs in my own code, and > I feel much better about the entire endeavor having re-worked things. > > So a couple of additional changes were made: > > * There's now a cc:legalcode assertion that explicitly points to the > legalcode URI for each license > * Deprecated licenses have a cc:deprectedOn assertion to state when > they were deprecated; this is an XSD:Date formatted value > * Ported licenses have a cc:jurisdiction assertion; this is a URI > pointing someplace a parser could (theoretically) retrieve additional > information about the jurisdiction > * dc:creator is now specified as a URI; again, the hope is that > additional metadata could be specified @ that URI. > * dc:publisher has been omitted. > > A bit more about that final item: after discussing things with people > here at CC, we came to the conclusion that dc:publisher was pretty > vague and probably not all that useful at this point. When you think > about it, it's meta-metadata (metadata about the RDF itself, not the > license), so I'm proposing we remove it. This also implies we remove > the associated API from liblicense. > > I'd like to hear feedback on this final item in particular. > Objections? Is it being used in a way I'm not aware of? Any > feedback, etc welcome. > > Thanks. > > Nathan > _______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
