Great; I think we need to do some thinking here about what we have accurate translation strings for; it may be that we should be publishing descriptions for the license properties, not the licenses themselves. I've opened a ticket to track this (http://code.creativecommons.org/issues/issue163).
Nathan On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Jim Eng <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
