Hi Mike, Putting the implications of CC-rel aside you agree that we need to modify that document.
If it were up to you where would you place that RDFa? You indicated that putting it on top of “indicate if changes were made” is not ideal, I agree. But it is the best possible place on the page as it is now, if you ask me. Antoine and I also considered creating an empty span to communicate this RDF, however according to Antoine (who know way more about this than I) search engine consider them spam and might lower the ranking of CC’s pages. The ideal solution could be to change the explanation from: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. to Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made while keeping any notices intact. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. and add the RDFa to the newly added words. That is however something that the lawyers and community need to discuss. What do you guys think? Bottom line: as it stands now we provide two machine readable resources that claim different requirements of the licenses, that needs to be fixed. Best, Maarten -- Kennisland | www.kennisland.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra On 14 Mar 2014 at 6:25:14 , Mike Linksvayer ([email protected]) wrote: RDFa in the deed describes the corresponding license, and cc:Notice is a cc:Requirement which is in the range of cc:requires which has a domain of cc:License. A specific copyright notice would be pertinent to a licensed work -- if this were called out with RDFa, perhaps dc:rights or another refinement(s...there are potentially notices of copyright, license, modification, warranty disclaimer) thereof, it'd go in the HTML published with the licensed work. If I were writing an automatic remixing tool I'd go with "...it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information." -- hyperlink to the publisher's site, possibly including various notices in languages I can't discern, and archive that page if you want to do something extra. You can't count on anyone to properly annotate such notices anyway, so a tool that looks for them can't be foolproof. You can pretty much count on them not being properly annotated, as title and creator name usually aren't despite being in the CC chooser forever. IANAL etc. Maarten is right that the cc:Notice annotation ought be added back to the deed. I might not add it to the text concerning indication of modification as notice isn't specific only to that, but that's very close to right. IMHO etc. Mike On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Tarmo Toikkanen <[email protected]> wrote: As the 4.0 license allows for licensees to specify a custom copyright notice, which reusers must retain in any reproductions and redistributions, would the new cc:Notice tag actually contain this custom copyright notice, or is it for something else? I for one would like to see the copyright notice be part of the license RDFa, since it’s unrealistic to expect reusers to retain information that can only be found by visually browsing the publisher’s site, and trying to locate such information (possibly in a foreign language, even). -- Tarmo Toikkanen [email protected] http://tarmo.fi On Thursday 13. 03 2014 at 1.30, Maarten Zeinstra wrote: Hi all, Recently I’ve been working with Antoine Isaac (in cc) from Europeana on the machine readability of the deed pages of the 4.0 licenses. Antoine noticed that the RDF attached to the attribution license (and all other licenses) was not in sync with the separate RDF file. Compare: the RDFa of http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (using http://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/extract?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fcreativecommons.org%2Flicenses%2Fby%2F4.0%2F&format=turtle&rdfagraph=output&vocab_expansion=false&rdfa_lite=false&embedded_rdf=true&space_preserve=true&vocab_cache=true&vocab_cache_report=false&vocab_cache_refresh=false) to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/rdf The latter has a cc:requires cc:Notice which is missing in the former. The consequence of this is that machine readers could get confused because there are contradicting sources. Also software based on this standard could produce wrong information. To fix this problem we propose to move the the rdfa of cc:Attribution and add a cc:Notice RDFa tag. We’ve created a pull request that details this change here: https://github.com/creativecommons/creativecommons.org/pull/18 What do you guys think of this change request? Did we overlook something and is this the most elegant way to fix this problem? Many thanks to Antoine for pointing this out and working on a fix with me. Cheers, Maarten -- Kennisland | www.kennisland.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra _______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel _______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
_______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
