Help Kyaw On Mar 14, 2014 3:34 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Send cc-devel mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cc-devel digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Missing machine readable notice statement in all CC4.0 > licenses (Mike Linksvayer) > 2. Re: Missing machine readable notice statement in all CC4.0 > licenses (Maarten Zeinstra) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 22:25:13 -0700 > From: Mike Linksvayer <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [cc-devel] Missing machine readable notice statement in > all CC4.0 licenses > To: Tarmo Toikkanen <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected] devel" <[email protected]>, > Antoine Isaac <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <CAGSmzpSQ3GueNGRDhEj_sTujb6HJ9j= > [email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > 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 > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/attachments/20140313/cc6b993a/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:04:18 +0100 > From: Maarten Zeinstra <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [cc-devel] Missing machine readable notice statement in > all CC4.0 licenses > To: Mike Linksvayer <[email protected]>, Tarmo Toikkanen > <[email protected]> > Cc: " [email protected] devel " < > [email protected]>, > Antoine Isaac <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > 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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/attachments/20140314/2daafc27/attachment.html > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > cc-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel > > > End of cc-devel Digest, Vol 94, Issue 7 > *************************************** >
_______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
