Hi Jonas, I think that should already be possible, no?
http://creativecommons.org/ns (http://creativecommons.org/ns#) says that cc:attributionURL is: "The URL (http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource) the creator of a Work (http://creativecommons.org/ns#Work) would like used when attributing re-use." http://labs.creativecommons.org/2011/ccrel-guide/ says: "The attribution URL is important when you want to indicate what URL re-users of your CC-licensed work should link to when they attribute your work." It's whatever the author wants it to be, so it could be a link to the work. Dan On Thursday, June 13, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Jonas Öberg wrote: > Hi Maarten, > > I think it's reasonable to just clarify in the ccREL standard that the two > are synonymous. > > For the RDFa generated, I think that the attributionURL should be associated > with the work and not the author. Ie., > > This <a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#"; > href="http://jonasoberg.net/this-work"; rel="cc:attributionURL">work</a> by > <span xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#"; > property="cc:attributionName">Jonas Öberg</span> > > > However, I don't think it's reasonable to make any changes to the chooser > output without at the same time revising the examples in the ccREL standard > document. > > So what I'm saying is that having a process for how we record "change > requests" to the standard and how the revision process look like is probably > more important than correcting these specific issues. > > > Jonas > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Maarten Zeinstra <[email protected] > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > So Jonas what do you propose. > > > > Would it be better to adjust XMP output of the chooser? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Maarten > > -- > > Kennisland | www.kennisland.nl (http://www.kennisland.nl) | t +31205756720 > > (tel:%2B31205756720) | m +31643053919 (tel:%2B31643053919) | @mzeinstra > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 2013, at 18:36 , Nathan Yergler <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > > > That's a great point, the formatting does conflate the creator and the > > > work a bit. > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Jonas Öberg <[email protected] > > > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > >> Hi Nathan! > > >> > > >> I'd be hard pressed to argue semantics with one of the ccREL authors :-) > > >> > > >> The specification is clear that attributionURL is "the URL to link to > > >> when providing attribution", which is a reference to the license > > >> requirement. I think what confuses it is that this is most often used, > > >> even in the ccREL examples, to refer to what can be interpreted as the > > >> URL of the attributionName. For example in the RDFa: > > >> > > >> This work by <a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#"; > > >> href="http://jonasoberg.net/"; property="cc:attributionName" > > >> rel="cc:attributionURL">Jonas Öberg</a> is licensed under a <a > > >> rel="license" > > >> href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en_US";>Creative > > >> Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License</a>. > > >> > > >> Sincerely, > > >> Jonas > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Nathan Yergler <[email protected] > > >> (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > >>> How do you believe a web statement differs from the attribution URL, > > >>> functionally? > > >>> > > >>> IIRC a "web statement" is supposed to be a web accessible resource > > >>> that contains information about the rights, permissions, etc related > > >>> to the work. CC licenses state that the attribution URL only needs to > > >>> be cited with the work when it includes copyright information or > > >>> license notice (4(b)(iii) in > > >>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode). So both need to > > >>> be web-accessible resources that contain license, copyright, or rights > > >>> information. I believe that was the basis for treating them as > > >>> synonyms. > > >>> > > >>> NRY > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Jonas Öberg <[email protected] > > >>> (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > >>>> Dear all, > > >>>> > > >>>> I was just made aware that in the license chooser, when a user enters > > >>>> a URL to attribute the work to, this is stored in different properties > > >>>> in the XMP and RDFa formats. In XMP, it's stored in > > >>>> xapRights:WebStatement and in RDFa it's stored in cc:attributionURL. I > > >>>> understand the difference between the two, but it's not clear to me > > >>>> why there is a difference between how the information from the license > > >>>> chooser is encoded in the various formats. > > >>>> > > >>>> It seems to me that there ought to be a separate field that allows a > > >>>> user to specify a WebStatement, and that the URL to attribute the work > > >>>> to should be encoded in the cc:attributionURL regardless of what > > >>>> format is used. > > >>>> > > >>>> Any thoughts? > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Sincerely, > > >>>> Jonas > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> cc-devel mailing list > > >>>> [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > > >>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel > > > _______________________________________________ > > > cc-devel mailing list > > > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > cc-devel mailing list > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel > >
_______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
