On 03/14/2014 02:04 AM, Maarten Zeinstra wrote: > 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.
Those added words would be the ideal place to add a cc:requires cc:Notice annotation. I assume the current text was crafted very carefully, so I've no opinion. Without the added words, maybe a span around "do so". Another option would be to remove the Notice statement from the RDF/XML as well and change the schema such that cc:Notice is a subclass of cc:Attribution. This would reflect how most people bundle the concepts, including now on the deeds, and also outside CC -- some people call BSD and MIT attribution licenses, though their only such requirement is to retain copyright notices. I'd recommend getting more expert semweb feedback before implementing this option. Mike > 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 <http://www.kennisland.nl/> | t +31205756720 > <tel://t%20+31205756720> | m +31643053919 <tel://m%20+31643053919> | > @mzeinstra > > On 14 Mar 2014 at 6:25:14 , Mike Linksvayer ([email protected] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 <http://www.kennisland.nl/> | t >>> +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
