RDF updated in liblicense repository; RFC on liblicense API change

I've completed reworking the gen_licenses.py script for
liblicense and
have committed updated versions of the RDF to the repository
in the
nyergler-rdf-sanity branch.  I'd like to thank Scott and
Jason for
their work this summer that made this possible.  Going
through their
script actually revealed a couple of painful bugs in my own
code, and
I feel much better about the entire endeavor having
re-worked things.

So a couple of additional changes were made:

* There's now a cc:legalcode assertion that explicitly
points to the
legalcode URI for each license
* Deprecated licenses have a cc:deprectedOn assertion to
state when
they were deprecated; this is an XSDate
formatted value
* Ported licenses have a cc:jurisdiction assertion; this is
a URI
pointing someplace a parser could (theoretically) retrieve
additional
information about the jurisdiction
* dc:creator is now specified as a URI; again, the hope is
that
additional metadata could be specified  that
URI.
* dc:publisher has been omitted.

A bit more about that final item: after discussing things
with people
here at CC, we came to the conclusion that dc:publisher was
pretty
vague and probably not all that useful at this point.  When
you think
about it, it's meta-metadata (metadata about the RDF itself,
not the
license), so I'm proposing we remove it.  This also implies
we remove
the associated API from liblicense.

I'd like to hear feedback on this final item in particular.
Objections?  Is it being used in a way I'm not aware of? 
Any
feedback, etc welcome.

Thanks.

Nathan
_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list
cc-devellists.ibiblio.org
ht
tp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel

On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 11:12 -0700, Nathan Yergler wrote:
> I've completed reworking the gen_licenses.py script for
liblicense and
> have committed updated versions of the RDF to the
repository in the
> nyergler-rdf-sanity branch.  I'd like to thank Scott
and Jason for
> their work this summer that made this possible.  

Here here!...heya guys, please take a look...once a cc'r,
always a cc'r
(that is short for commoner ;)

> Going through their
> script actually revealed a couple of painful bugs in my
own code, and
> I feel much better about the entire endeavor having
re-worked things.

Cool...

> So a couple of additional changes were made:
> 
> * There's now a cc:legalcode assertion that explicitly
points to the
> legalcode URI for each license
> * Deprecated licenses have a cc:deprectedOn assertion
to state when
> they were deprecated; this is an XSDate
formatted value
> * Ported licenses have a cc:jurisdiction assertion;
this is a URI
> pointing someplace a parser could (theoretically)
retrieve additional
> information about the jurisdiction
> * dc:creator is now specified as a URI; again, the hope
is that
> additional metadata could be specified  that
URI.
> * dc:publisher has been omitted.
> 
> A bit more about that final item: after discussing
things with people
> here at CC, we came to the conclusion that dc:publisher
was pretty
> vague and probably not all that useful at this point. 
When you think
> about it, it's meta-metadata (metadata about the RDF
itself, not the
> license), so I'm proposing we remove it.  This also
implies we remove
> the associated API from liblicense.
> 
> I'd like to hear feedback on this final item in
particular.
> Objections?  Is it being used in a way I'm not aware
of?  Any
> feedback, etc welcome.

Scott? Jason? Pmiller? Unfortunately I have not been
following as
closely as I'd like...but your suggestions make sense...Viva
la
commiters!

Jon

> Thanks.
> 
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> cc-devel mailing list
> cc-devellists.ibiblio.org
> ht
tp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
-- 
Jon Phillips

San Francisco, CA
USA PH 510.499.0894
jonrejon.org
http://www.rejon.org

MSN, AIM, Yahoo Chat: kidproto
Jabber Chat: rejongristle.org
IRC: rejonirc.freenode.net

Please note: the contents of this email are not intended to
be
legal advice nor should they be relied upon as or
represented to be
legal advice. Jon Phillips does not represent any
organization through
this email address.

_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list
cc-devellists.ibiblio.org
ht
tp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel

Just a quick note to let everyone know that I've completed
the RDF
work and merged the branch back to the trunk (as of r7939). 
A few
notes:

* No more gen_licenses.py, no more licenses (in this
Subversion
module): the RDF is now maintained in the license.rdf module
in
Subversion, linked into liblicense with an svn:external. 
The tools
for updating it [will] live there as well.
* dc:hasVersion is now dcterms:hasVersion
* dc:isBasedOn is now dc:source
* dc:isReplacedBy is now dcterms:isReplacedBy
* As proposed in my earlier message, I've removed the
Publisher
metadata and API (silence is assent)

Thanks again to Scott and Jason for laying the groundwork
for this.

Nathan

On 10/31/07, Nathan Yergler <nathancreativecommons.org>
wrote:
> I've completed reworking the gen_licenses.py script for
liblicense and
> have committed updated versions of the RDF to the
repository in the
> nyergler-rdf-sanity branch.  I'd like to thank Scott
and Jason for
> their work this summer that made this possible.  Going
through their
> script actually revealed a couple of painful bugs in my
own code, and
> I feel much better about the entire endeavor having
re-worked things.
>
> So a couple of additional changes were made:
>
> * There's now a cc:legalcode assertion that explicitly
points to the
> legalcode URI for each license
> * Deprecated licenses have a cc:deprectedOn assertion
to state when
> they were deprecated; this is an XSDate
formatted value
> * Ported licenses have a cc:jurisdiction assertion;
this is a URI
> pointing someplace a parser could (theoretically)
retrieve additional
> information about the jurisdiction
> * dc:creator is now specified as a URI; again, the hope
is that
> additional metadata could be specified  that
URI.
> * dc:publisher has been omitted.
>
> A bit more about that final item: after discussing
things with people
> here at CC, we came to the conclusion that dc:publisher
was pretty
> vague and probably not all that useful at this point. 
When you think
> about it, it's meta-metadata (metadata about the RDF
itself, not the
> license), so I'm proposing we remove it.  This also
implies we remove
> the associated API from liblicense.
>
> I'd like to hear feedback on this final item in
particular.
> Objections?  Is it being used in a way I'm not aware
of?  Any
> feedback, etc welcome.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Nathan
>
_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list
cc-devellists.ibiblio.org
ht
tp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel