Re: [cc-devel] CC 1.5 and embedding RDF

Wendy Bossons Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:39:27 -0800

So then either of the following are correct (first example is from the given w3 page), but the unprefixed form is safer in the sense that it's more likely to be understood by a wide range of search engines . . .


<a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#";
  rel="cc:license"
  href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/";>
  Creative Commons License
</a>


or

<a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#";
  rel="license"
  href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/";>
  Creative Commons License
</a>




Wendy Bossons
Web Developer

Contact Information:
[email protected]
617-253-0770






On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:28 AM, Nathan Yergler wrote:

license is one of the reserved values in RDFa, as it's defined in the
XHTML namespace; see http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#relValues for a
list of these values.  It's implicit that license is in the XHTML
namespace, and any conforming RDFa processor will return a fully
qualified URI in that namespace.

You could do cc:license, but these days it's declared to be the same
of xhtml:license.  Additionally, it appears that some search engines
do not use conforming processors to index CC licensed content, instead
looking for rel="license", so using a different namespace will impact
how they index your content.

Nathan
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Wendy Bossons <[email protected]> wrote:
Why is the metainformation attribute, rel, never prefixed when it references
"license"?

Example:
<a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/";>......</a>

Would it be incorrect to rephrase the above as:

<a rel="cc:license" xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#";
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/....";>.......</a>

The reason I ask is the CC LIcense searchable as metadata within the
application I'm working on. If it is to do that, I believe the license
metadata should follow the same pattern as other metadata, such as
<span xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/...."; href="http://purl.org/dc/dmcitype/ "
rel="dc:type">work</span>


..\Wendy


Wendy Bossons
Web Developer

Contact Information:
[email protected]
617-253-0770






On Dec 3, 2009, at 1:38 PM, Nathan Yergler wrote:
Hi Wendy,

The two blocks have (had) slightly different purposes; the first one
describes a work with a particular license. The latter only describes
the license.
That said, we no longer recommend embedding either in HTML pages. We previously recommended embedding the former block in an HTML comment.
While this approach had advantages over other available approaches
when we developed it, it still has lots of problems, including over
verbosity, invisibility to many parsers, and lack of standards
compliance.  We're now recommending the use of RDFa to describe the
license of a page.  See
http://creativecommons.org/choose/results-one?license-code=by for an
example of the HTML+RDFa needed to describe the license of a work, and
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/ccREL for more details.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Nathan
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Wendy Bossons <[email protected]> wrote:
What is the current recommendation on using the rdf that is returned by
the
CC issue call?
For example, there are two rdf blocks in the response. Is one for
backward
compatibility? How do you recommend using the response, e.g. if embedding
the rdf in the page, should one or both of the rdf blocks be used?
Example from response document:

...

<rdf>
 <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://creativecommons.org/ns#";
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#";
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#";>
  <Work rdf:about="">
   <license
rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/"/>
  </Work>
<License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/ "> <permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction "/> <permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution "/>
   <requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Notice"/>
<requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Attribution "/>
   <permits
rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks"/>
  </License>
 </rdf:RDF>
</rdf>
<licenserdf>
 <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://creativecommons.org/ns#";
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#";>
<License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ us/"> <permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction "/> <permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution "/>
   <requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Notice"/>
<requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Attribution "/>
   <permits
rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks"/>
 </License>
 </rdf:RDF>
</licenserdf>

Wendy Bossons
Web Developer
Contact Information:
[email protected]
617-253-0770






_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel

Re: [cc-devel] CC 1.5 and embedding RDF

Reply via email to