Thanks Jonas, I would like an external xsd expert to have a look at it as well. I will try and see if I can find someone who can confirm the accuracy of the xsd.
next step is to create a couple of examples how to implement this in xml files. I would suggest to create a simple explaining xml example and one for OAI-PMH, a standard in the cultural sector. We can add that to the ccrel guide document on git. What do you think? Cheers, Maarten On Jan 16, 2013, at 15:40 , 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 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 >> >> -- > > > > > -- > 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
