- From: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:08:55 +0000
- To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
- CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Dan Brickley wrote: > On 26/1/09 02:55, Ben Adida wrote: >> On the issue of cut-and-paste: Creative Commons is, to my knowledge, the >> biggest publisher of RDFa, and we haven't had much trouble getting users >> to copy and paste proper RDFa. It's also been no problem getting folks >> to add more complex ideas, like attribution name and URL (in fact, many >> are pressing us to add more to our vocabulary, and we're being very >> careful to do that only after serious consideration.) > > That's great. When I talked with Ian he was asking how many RDFa use > cases were in the 'copy and paste something I don't understand' area > (akin to .js widgets), versus copy/paste but edit and tweak, vs hand > author etc. It is very good to have implementor feedback. Have you done > any statistics to see what proportion of CC RDFa is still a sensible RDF > graph, how often it is customised/tweaked and so on? I don't have any decent statistics, but I've got some quick hacked-together data at http://philip.html5.org/data/cc-errors.txt Brief summary: As of a year ago, 0.1% of pages on dmoz.org (132 in my sample) had CC RDFa embedded in comments. (0.01% had it outside comments). Only one wasn't well-formed XML. Eight had an empty <License> element (I have no idea if that's a bad thing or not but it seemed odd). Two made incorrect assertions about licenses (e.g. saying that by-nc-nd permits DerivativeWorks), which looks like a case of copy-and-paste-and-tweak-and-get-it-wrong. So the error rate is low non-zero integer percentages. -- Philip Taylor pjt47@cam.ac.uk
Received on Monday, 26 January 2009 20:43:03 UTC