Hi Nathan, Thanks for your replies. The sum of the parts is fine. It doesn't have to be a single sentence. But we're looking for a short paragraph that describes the license. If we get that by concatenating descriptions of the various parts, so be it.
Jim On Feb 24, 2009, at 4:55 PM, Nathan Yergler wrote: > Hi Jim -- > > So the problem here is that the RDF you're looking at was generated > programmatically from existing systems. One of our ongoing > goals/challenges is to make reality match what we claim; that is, that > the RDF is the canonical representation of the license. I'm happy to > report that we're going to be putting some directed effort into this > in the next month or so, but I expect there will be some rough spots. > Like this one. The reason there's no description for the "compound" > licenses is that the descriptions you're seeing are actually for the > particular license elements (ie, "BY" or "NC"), not the entire > license. I suppose to make the RDF match reality we should purge all > of those dc:description elements, since calling them the description > of the license is potentially inaccurate. > > It might be useful to find out what you expect a reasonable value of > dc:description for a License would be. If it's a one sentence summary > of the license, I'm not sure we have an analogous "feature" right now > on the site. > > Nathan > > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Jim Eng <[email protected]> wrote: >> I am looking at the license metadata from the licenses directory of >> the liblicense-0.8.1 zip file. I'm wondering about the logic for >> finding a license description. The metadata defines 376 licenses, >> and >> only a few of them have "dc:description" elements. Those with >> descriptions are the simple licenses ("by", "nc", "nd", "sa"). The >> composite licenses (e.g. "by-nc-nd", "by-nc-sa", "by-nc", "by-nd-nc", >> "by-nd", "by-sa", "nc-sa") do not contain definition elements. > >> >> Suppose I want to display an plain-English (or plain-French or plain- >> Chinese or whatever locale my user requires) description of a "by-nc- >> nd" license for a particular jurisdiction. I would start with the >> most recent version of that license for the jurisdiction (2.5 in most >> cases or 3.0 if the jurisdiction is the USA) and find that it does >> not >> have a description. So do I then look for the three licenses ("by", >> "nc" and "nd") and combine their descriptions to get the description >> of "by-nc-nd"? >> >> If the answer to the last question is "yes", here's a follow-up >> question: It looks like the most recent general description of "by" >> is >> 3.0, but most (or all?) of the licenses for separate jurisdictions >> have descriptions in version 2.5. Which should we use -- the >> description for the preferred locale for the general 3.0 "by" license >> or the description for the preferred locale for the specific >> jurisdiction's 2.5 "by" license? For "nc" and "nd", do I use the 1.0 >> version unless the jurisdiction is "jp", in which case, do I use the >> 2.0 description? >> >> The metadata in the license files seems to be silent on the question >> of how to find an appropriate description unless it's included in the >> license itself (or in a license referenced in an "isReplacedBy" tag >> or >> a "source" tag). By that I mean that the metadata for version 3.0 of >> the "by-nc-nd" license makes no reference to any prior versions or to >> the "by", "nc" or "nd" licenses. That makes me wonder if the plain- >> language description for a particular locale and jurisdition is >> defined somewhere else? > >> >> Thanks for any suggestions. >> >> Jim >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cc-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel >> > > _______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
