Hi Maarten! I had a look over the XSD proposal and I think it's overall good. It's an accurate representation of the current state of CC-Rel. I have some concerns over CC-Rel itself (for a later time), but not over the XSD :-)
Jonas On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Jonas Öberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Maarten! > > I had a look over the XSD proposal and I think it's overall good. It's an > accurate representation of the current state of CC-Rel. I have some > concerns over CC-Rel itself (for a later time), but not over the XSD :-) > > > Jonas > > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Maarten Zeinstra <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Jonas, >> >> Could you also look at the xsd proposal that Greg put up in a Google Doc? >> I would consider that low hanging fruit. >> >> Maybe we should create a large group/committee/task force of tech CC'ers >> that goes through the process of evaluating all CC tech documents and >> pages. Adopting an agile method with sprints of two weeks where we polish >> one part of CC-tech at each sprint. That way we could be able to refactor >> some of the parts of CC's infrastructure, re-familarize ourselves with some >> of these pages and create a structure as to not lose focus or get lost in >> the forest of projects and pages. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Maarten >> >> On Jan 15, 2013, at 19:35 , Jonas Öberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Greg, and everyone else, and thanks to Maarten for bring this issue to >> the table! >> >> I echo Maartens sentiment that there is a lack of structured information >> about CC's technology -- including information about which tools are >> retired and which are not. To give another example; the liblicense wiki >> page doesn't say anything about liblicense being retired, but in practice, >> the last work on this was in early 2009. Clearly, we have work to do on >> updating our resources! >> >> As some of you know, I have a great deal of interest in metadata for >> licensing, attribution and provenance, and I'd be happy to put some work >> into this to help move things forward. >> >> I'd say we're about three years behind on a Creative Commons Technology >> Summit! :-) >> >> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/TechSummit >> >> All the best, >> Jonas >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Greg Grossmeier <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Hi Maarten, >>> >>> I agree. >>> >>> Others might disagree with me (if you do, let me know): but I think it >>> is too early to say which syntax has won the semweb war. Some may have >>> opinions on which one(s) lost, but I don't know if we can say any one >>> won. >>> >>> I see this in the same way I see us "supporting" license metadata in >>> files (eg pdfs). We don't say LibreOffice won and thus don't give >>> examples of how to do it in MS Office (if there are such examples at >>> all). >>> >>> So, yes, we (I/someone in CC Tech) should rework much of >>> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Metadata (and related pages). >>> >>> On a basic level, we should at least have 3 examples on some page >>> marking up the same content with 3 different syntaxes. >>> >>> Timeframe, not really. >>> >>> I can put it on my short term list to create >>> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC_REL/Examples and outline the basic >>> examples. >>> >>> On the long term, updating >>> http://labs.creativecommons.org/2011/ccrel-guide/ is probably wise. >>> >>> I'll get back to you/the list with progress/more information. >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> <quote name="Maarten Zeinstra" date="2013-01-14" time="09:21:00 +0100"> >>> > 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 | >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> | 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 >>> >>> -- <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel> >> >> >> > > > -- > Jonas Öberg > VD, Föreningen fri kultur och programvara > Regional Coordinator - Europe, Creative Commons > Phone: +46-31-7802161 > -- Jonas Öberg, Executive Director, Föreningen fri kultur och programvara (FFKP) Phone: +46 31 780 21 61 ---- Webb: http://ffkp.se/ Free Society Conference and Nordic Summit -||- http://fscons.org/
_______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
