Hi Greg, Sure that gives me some more information about RDF and schema.org.
However most institutions that deal with large metadata formats don't care much about presenting rights information easily to third parties. So it is usually already a lot of work to convince them to put proper rights information online.Rights information is usually the last requirement for web development. When such a party already adopted microdata or microformats than I cannot argue that they should refactor their metadata presentation layer because of something they regard as a small detail. Remember they are usually more than happy to puts rights information in DC:rights as a piece of text (in their own language). That's why I think that we should start reworking/updating our examples of the implementation of CCRel to properly reflect its possibilities. We should build examples for microdata, microformats and XML (like I suggested almost 2 years ago) implementations of CCRel to properly use that standard. I am more than happy to assist in this, but I look toward you to manage that process. So do you have a timeframe for us/me? Cheers, Maarten On Jan 11, 2013, at 18:38 , Greg Grossmeier <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Maarten! > > <quote name="[email protected]" date="2013-01-11" time="13:08:33 +0100"> >> Hello, >> >> I always promote CCRel when an organisation asks me for advice when >> switching to a CC based publishing model (mostly NGO, Non-profits and >> governments). > > Thanks for your hard work on this. > >> But lately I have the feeling that our direction with >> CCRel is getting outdated/outpaced by microdata initiatives like >> schema.org. There is no version or implementation guide available for >> CCRel available for microdata and microformats. > > Two things: > > 1) Yes, CCRel hasn't been updated in a long time. > > 2) Correction: Schema.org isn't *only* microdata. That ontology is also > perfectly usable (and officially supported) in RDFa 1.1 lite: > http://blog.schema.org/2011/11/using-rdfa-11-lite-with-schemaorg.html > > Also see: > http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html > "Our use of Microdata maps easily into RDFa Lite. In fact, all of > Schema.org can be used with the RDFa Lite syntax as is. The RDFa Lite > version of the markup looks almost isomorphic to the Microdata version." > >> Also I see advices >> from google that microdata, microformats and RDFa should not be mixed >> in one webpage. > > Correct. Which is why I am recommending to people to use RDFa when > implementing Schema.org unless otherwise needed. > >> If we do bring about new implementation guides for >> other version than our rights description language will be bypassed in >> favour for DC:rights. Something that is not desirable. >> >> I believe we should start working on better descriptions of CCRel that >> fits these other use cases. >> >> What are your thoughts about these? > > Agree and agree. We should make sure we update our documentation to be > more explicit about how to handle this situation. > > > Did my clarification above help you in your current work? > > > Thanks, > > Greg > > -- > | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | > | http://grossmeier.net A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D | _______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
