Re: Where's the machine code?

As far as I able to tell, the current generator for CC
licenses (ver. 3.0)
does not generate /any/ metadata.

I happen to think this is a bad thing, because when people
copy and paste
this code, there will be a number of CC-licenced works out
there without
proper metadata attached.

For instance, for the unported "Creative Commons
Attribution 3.0 License"):
http://creativec
ommons.org/license/results-one?q_1=2&q_1=1&field_com
mercial=yes&field_derivatives=yes&field_jurisdiction
=&field_format=&field_worktitle=&field_attribute
_to_name=&field_attribute_to_url=&field_sourceurl=&a
mp;field_morepermissionsurl=&lang=en_US&language=en_
US&n_questions=3

Back in April, there was a brief thread about this on the
list titled
"Where's the machine code?", that was answered by
Mike Linksvayer (Tue Apr
17 20):

> We're just not using the ugly
RDF/XML-embedded-in-HTML-comments
> anymore.  Explanatory blog post forthcoming.

If one reads the FAQ, the official policy is that RDF is in
use:
htt
p://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Why_did_Creative_Commons_ch
oose_to_use_the_RDF_format_for_its_metadata.3F

That is also the impression one gets from these pagea:
http://wiki.
creativecommons.org/Metadata
ht
tp://wiki.creativecommons.org/Implement_Metadata


So waht is the current status on this.
Has that  explanatory blog post come forth?
-- 
Gisle Hannemyr ( http://hannemyr.com/ )

_______________________________________________
cc-metadata mailing list
metadatacreativecommons.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-metadata

The HTML generated by the URL you provided *does* contain
metadata.
The HTML looks like this:

<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">
<img alt="Creative Commons License"
style="border-width:0"
src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/88x31.png"
/>
</a>
<br />This work is licensed under a
<a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/"&g
t;Creative Commons
Attribution 3.0 License</a>.

The rel="license" attribute on the link tags mark
the target of the
link as the license.  This works as  a microformat
(http://micro
formats.org/wiki/rel-license) as well as RDFa
(http://rdfa.info).  If you
provide any of the optional fields in the
chooser (http://creativecom
mons.org/license), those are also encoded
as RDFa.

This is a huge improvement over the old system (RDF in a
comment)
because now the metadata is actually *part* of the document
parse
tree, as opposed to being in something that your parser
needs special
knowledge to extract and handle.

I'm not sure if the blog post Mike was thinking of ever
materialized,
but I posted to the TechBlog about this last week
http://techblog.creativecom
mons.org/2007/06/21/enhanced-metadata-graduates-from-labs/

Hope that sheds some light on things; please let me know if
you have
other questions.

Nathan

On 7/6/07, Gisle Hannemyr <gisleifi.uio.no> wrote:
> As far as I able to tell, the current generator for CC
licenses (ver. 3.0)
> does not generate /any/ metadata.
>
> I happen to think this is a bad thing, because when
people copy and paste
> this code, there will be a number of CC-licenced works
out there without
> proper metadata attached.
>
> For instance, for the unported "Creative Commons
Attribution 3.0 License"):
> http://creativec
ommons.org/license/results-one?q_1=2&q_1=1&field_com
mercial=yes&field_derivatives=yes&field_jurisdiction
=&field_format=&field_worktitle=&field_attribute
_to_name=&field_attribute_to_url=&field_sourceurl=&a
mp;field_morepermissionsurl=&lang=en_US&language=en_
US&n_questions=3
>
> Back in April, there was a brief thread about this on
the list titled
> "Where's the machine code?", that was
answered by Mike Linksvayer (Tue Apr
> 17 20):
>
> > We're just not using the ugly
RDF/XML-embedded-in-HTML-comments
> > anymore.  Explanatory blog post forthcoming.
>
> If one reads the FAQ, the official policy is that RDF
is in use:
> htt
p://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Why_did_Creative_Commons_ch
oose_to_use_the_RDF_format_for_its_metadata.3F
>
> That is also the impression one gets from these pagea:
> http://wiki.
creativecommons.org/Metadata
> ht
tp://wiki.creativecommons.org/Implement_Metadata
>
>
> So waht is the current status on this.
> Has that  explanatory blog post come forth?
> --
> Gisle Hannemyr ( http://hannemyr.com/ )
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-metadata mailing list
> metadatacreativecommons.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-metadata
>
_______________________________________________
cc-metadata mailing list
metadatacreativecommons.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-metadata

Thank you for your prompt reply.
And yes, I have other questions.

First, I understand that the rel="license" is
metadata, and that it works
as a microformat. (Btw. the rel="license" was also
used in prior versions
of the machine code, i.e. those with RDF in HTML-comments.)

The bit I am asking about, is the bit of metadata that
explicitly told the
machine what was permitted, prohibited, and required.

I must admit that I am not familiar with RFDa.
I did visit http://rdfa.info
, as well as read through
http://www.w3
.org/TR/xhtml-rdfa-primer/ , but I have a lot to learn.
RDFa looks like a good idea, and I think I understand how
one can use RFDa
to express the same thing as one expressed in commented RDF
before.

My problem is that I can't find any RFDa in the current
machine readable
cc licenses.

The W3C documents states "We note that RDFa makes use
of XML namespaces." 
In the (X)HTML license templates generated by the
chooser ( http://creativecom
mons.org/license ). Yet, I can't see any use
of namespaces in the current licenses.

You also write: "If you provide any of the optional
fields in the chooser
(...) those are also encoded as RDFa."

I tried to generate a license with optional fields
(by-nc-nd) - and this
is how the machine readable version looks like:

<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/&quo
t;>
<img alt="Creative Commons License"
style="border-width:0"
src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-nd/3.0/88x31.png
" />
</a>
<br />
This work is licensed under a
<a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/
3.0/">Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
License</a>.

I don't understand what part of this code that is supposed
to be RDFa.

As I said, I am not familiar with RDFa, so this may be due
to my
incomplete understanding of this.

=====Original Message =====
Nathan R. Yergler wrote:
> The HTML generated by the URL you provided *does*
contain metadata.
> The HTML looks like this:
>
> <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">
> <img alt="Creative Commons License"
style="border-width:0"
> src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/88x31.png"
/>
> </a>
> <br />This work is licensed under a
> <a rel="license"
> href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/"&g
t;Creative Commons
> Attribution 3.0 License</a>.
>
> The rel="license" attribute on the link tags
mark the target of the
> link as the license.  This works as  a microformat
> (http://micro
formats.org/wiki/rel-license) as well as RDFa
> (http://rdfa.info).  If
you provide any of the optional fields in the
> chooser (http://creativecom
mons.org/license), those are also encoded
> as RDFa.
>
> This is a huge improvement over the old system (RDF in
a comment)
> because now the metadata is actually *part* of the
document parse
> tree, as opposed to being in something that your parser
needs special
> knowledge to extract and handle.
>
> I'm not sure if the blog post Mike was thinking of ever
materialized,
> but I posted to the TechBlog about this last week
> http://techblog.creativecom
mons.org/2007/06/21/enhanced-metadata-graduates-from-labs/
>
> Hope that sheds some light on things; please let me
know if you have
> other questions.
>
> Nathan
>
> On 7/6/07, Gisle Hannemyr <gisleifi.uio.no> wrote:
>> As far as I able to tell, the current generator for
CC licenses (ver.
>> 3.0)
>> does not generate /any/ metadata.
>>
>> I happen to think this is a bad thing, because when
people copy and
>> paste
>> this code, there will be a number of CC-licenced
works out there without
>> proper metadata attached.
>>
>> For instance, for the unported "Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0
>> License"):
>> http://creativec
ommons.org/license/results-one?q_1=2&q_1=1&field_com
mercial=yes&field_derivatives=yes&field_jurisdiction
=&field_format=&field_worktitle=&field_attribute
_to_name=&field_attribute_to_url=&field_sourceurl=&a
mp;field_morepermissionsurl=&lang=en_US&language=en_
US&n_questions=3
>>
>> Back in April, there was a brief thread about this
on the list titled
>> "Where's the machine code?", that was
answered by Mike Linksvayer (Tue
>> Apr
>> 17 20):
>>
>> > We're just not using the ugly
RDF/XML-embedded-in-HTML-comments
>> > anymore.  Explanatory blog post forthcoming.
>>
>> If one reads the FAQ, the official policy is that
RDF is in use:
>> htt
p://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Why_did_Creative_Commons_ch
oose_to_use_the_RDF_format_for_its_metadata.3F
>>
>> That is also the impression one gets from these
pagea:
>> http://wiki.
creativecommons.org/Metadata
>> ht
tp://wiki.creativecommons.org/Implement_Metadata
>>
>>
>> So waht is the current status on this.
>> Has that  explanatory blog post come forth?
-- 
Gisle Hannemyr ( http://hannemyr.com/ )

_______________________________________________
cc-metadata mailing list
metadatacreativecommons.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-metadata

On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 09:45 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
> First, I understand that the rel="license" is
metadata, and that it works
> as a microformat. (Btw. the rel="license" was
also used in prior versions
> of the machine code, i.e. those with RDF in
HTML-comments.)

Happens to be both a uF and RDFa.  Was actually introduced
long after
RDF/XML-in-a-HTML-comment was first provided.

> The bit I am asking about, is the bit of metadata that
explicitly told the
> machine what was permitted, prohibited, and required.

That was never appropriate to be included with the licensed
work, which
cannot define what is permitted etc by the license.  The
license does
this and is referenced by the work.

> I must admit that I am not familiar with RFDa.
> I did visit http://rdfa.info , as well as
read through
> http://www.w3
.org/TR/xhtml-rdfa-primer/ , but I have a lot to learn.
> RDFa looks like a good idea, and I think I understand
how one can use RFDa
> to express the same thing as one expressed in commented
RDF before.
> 
> My problem is that I can't find any RFDa in the current
machine readable
> cc licenses.
> 
> The W3C documents states "We note that RDFa makes
use of XML namespaces." 
> In the (X)HTML license templates generated by the
> chooser ( http://creativecom
mons.org/license ). Yet, I can't see any use
> of namespaces in the current licenses.

There's always a default namespace.

> You also write: "If you provide any of the
optional fields in the chooser
> (...) those are also encoded as RDFa."
> 
> I tried to generate a license with optional fields
(by-nc-nd) - and this
> is how the machine readable version looks like:
> 
> <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/&quo
t;>
> <img alt="Creative Commons License"
style="border-width:0"
> src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-nd/3.0/88x31.png
" />
> </a>
> <br />
> This work is licensed under a
> <a rel="license"
> href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/
3.0/">Creative Commons
> Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
License</a>.
> 
> I don't understand what part of this code that is
supposed to be RDFa.

I think you misunderstand what Nathan meant by
"optional fields" -- on
http://creativeco
mmons.org/license/ click "Click to include more
information about your work."

Mike


-- 
  
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:Mike_Linksvayer

_______________________________________________
cc-metadata mailing list
metadatacreativecommons.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-metadata

On 7/9/07, Gisle Hannemyr <gisleifi.uio.no> wrote:
> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 09:45 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr
wrote:
> >> First, I understand that the
rel="license" is metadata, and that it works
> >> as a microformat. (Btw. the
rel="license" was also used in prior versions
> >> of the machine code, i.e. those with RDF in
HTML-comments.)
>
> > Happens to be both a uF and RDFa.
>
> Thanks!  I think I understand that bit now.
>
> >> You also write: "If you provide any of
the optional fields in the chooser
> >> (...) those are also encoded as RDFa."
>
> > I think you misunderstand what Nathan meant by
"optional fields" --
> > on http://creativeco
mmons.org/license/ click "Click to include
> > more information about your work."
>
> Again, thanks, very helpful.
>
> I did click, and that brought up five additional
fields.
> I filled those in, and generated a license template
> which then had some additional RDFa(?) tags.
> Some of those were  in the Dublin  Core namespace
(dc -
> I won't bother you with those. But I also got the
following
> two tags in the Creative Commons (cc
namespace:
>
> <a xmlns:cc="http://creativec
ommons.org/ns#"
>    href="http://example.url/"
>    property="cc:attributionName"
>    rel="cc:attributionURL">Gisle Hannemyr
> </a>
>
> <a xmlns:cc="http://creativec
ommons.org/ns#"
>    href="http://morepermissi
ons.url/"
>    rel="cc:morePermissions">http://morepermissions.ur
l/
> </a>
>
> The three values of the "property" and
"rel" attributes
> contained in those tags were:
>    - attributionName
>    - attributionURL
>    - morePermissions
>
> The cc namespace is declared as follow:
>   xmlns:cc="http://creativec
ommons.org/ns#"
>
> Now, looking at the embedded RDF-in-HTML-comment found
at this address
> (and also at: http://creative
commons.org/schema.rdf ), I would
> expect to see the same three values (attributionName,
attributionURL
> and morePermissions) properly defined.  But I can't
find these
> definitions.  Is there something I've overlooked?

Not overlooked, just a recent addition to the schema and not
updated
there yet.

attributionName and attributionURL provide a way to define
how you
want the work to be attributed.  morePermissions allows you
to define
a URL where someone may find information about obtaining,
well, more
permissions.  These are actually used by the deeds these
days.  For
example, if you click through from a Magnatune page (say,
ht
tp://magnatune.com/artists/albums/williams-long/) to the
license,
you'll see the deed uses Javascript to reflect the
attribution and
more permissions information.

Nathan


>
> PS. The reason I am asking all these questions (apart
from that
>     I want to understand this), is that I am in charge
of writing
>     a CC tutorial in Norwegian (I too think that
somebody more
>     qualified should do this, but so far, I'm the only
one that
>     volunteered).  If any of you read Norwegian and
want to look
>     at this work in progress, the URL is:
>         http://www.c
reativecommons.no/omcc.shtml
>     The metadata bit is at the end.
> --
> - gisle hannemyr [ gislehannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
>
============================================================
============
>     "Don't follow leaders // Watch the parkin'
meters" - Bob Dylan
> _______________________________________________
> cc-metadata mailing list
> metadatacreativecommons.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-metadata
>
_______________________________________________
cc-metadata mailing list
metadatacreativecommons.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-metadata

On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 11:48 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
> Now, looking at the embedded RDF-in-HTML-comment found
at this address
> (and also at: http://creative
commons.org/schema.rdf ), I would
> expect to see the same three values (attributionName,
attributionURL
> and morePermissions) properly defined.  But I can't
find these
> definitions.  Is there something I've overlooked?

No, you haven't overlooked, they need to be added.  I
believe Ben Adida
will be updating the page (also making it work with GRDDL)
in the next
week or so.

> PS. The reason I am asking all these questions (apart
from that
>     I want to understand this), is that I am in charge
of writing
>     a CC tutorial in Norwegian (I too think that
somebody more
>     qualified should do this, but so far, I'm the only
one that
>     volunteered).  If any of you read Norwegian and
want to look
>     at this work in progress, the URL is:
>         http://www.c
reativecommons.no/omcc.shtml
>     The metadata bit is at the end.

Excellent!

Mike

-- 
  
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:Mike_Linksvayer

_______________________________________________
cc-metadata mailing list
metadatacreativecommons.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-metadata

On Mon, 2007-09-07 at 00:02 -0700, Mike Linksvayer wrote:

> > The bit I am asking about, is the bit of metadata
that explicitly told the
> > machine what was permitted, prohibited, and
required.
> 
> That was never appropriate to be included with the
licensed work, which
> cannot define what is permitted etc by the license. 
The license does
> this and is referenced by the work.

Big agreement from this corner!

-Evan

-- 
Evan Prodromou - evanprodromou.name - http://evan.prodromou.nam
e/

_______________________________________________
cc-metadata mailing list
metadatacreativecommons.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-metadata