Sure. Though those are just as valid, since the URL can really point to anything.
Dan On Thursday, June 13, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Jonas Öberg wrote: > Dan, > Yes, the only issue I see now is that the examples associate the URL with the > person, not the work. We do not need go change the semantics of the standard, > but we should rework some examples and use cases, as well as clarify the > intended use. > Jonas > On 13 Jun 2013 20:52, "Dan Mills" <[email protected] > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > 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
