W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa@w3.org > August 2010

Re: RDFa, FUD and ethics

From: David Peterson <david@davidseth.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:09:42 +1000
Message-ID: <4C6098C6.3020303@davidseth.net>
To: Keith Alexander <k.j.w.alexander@gmail.com>
CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, Public RDFa <public-rdfa@w3.org>, "Clark, Lin" <lin.w.clark@gmail.com>

I think Keith's suggestion to implement a license to be added to the 
RDFa is very good. That is one grey area of semantic content (RDFa) 
re-use and meshing that needs a clearer model. So by automatically 
including this licensing, I know I can re-use the data (or even better, 
the machine readable info can be automatically read by machines and used).

I also like Christopher St John's idea of using explanatory text:

    Then how about a warning along the lines of:

      "Drupal defaults to being very open to optimize search
      engine results and promote data reuse. You can make Drupal
      more closed, but that might lower your search engine rankings.
      Here's how to close it up."

So in closing, I think that RDFa should be switched on by default, but 
with licensing (CC by default) and better help text in place.



On 10/08/2010 9:01 AM, Keith Alexander wrote:
> Hi,
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Mark Birbeck
> <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>  wrote:
>> Is it not possible to make one of the configuration questions a clear
>> question about whether the user would like to enable certain features?
>> I don't mean "Would you like RDFa support?", but more like "Would you
>> like to allow sites to crawl your xyz data so that they can foobar?"
>> There could be some links and explanatory text so that people knew
>> what is going on, and how they would benefit from exposing their data.
> Since RDFa is only exposing data that is already public, and since "do
> you want RDFa?" might be an over-technical question for some people, a
> good way of making Drupal users aware of the possibility for re-using
> the data they publish could be to ask them to give it a  license (or
> waiver [1]), making the terms for that reuse explicit.
> A parallel could be the way Flickr gives users the ability to attach
> various licenses to their own photos, but whereas the Flickr default
> is the most restrictive option (full copyright),  it would probably be
> more appropriate for the Drupal default to be a very permissive
> option, like CC0 [2].
> Are there already plans for including license/waiver declarations in the RDFa?
> Keith
> [1]http://vocab.org/waiver/terms/
> [2]http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/
Received on Tuesday, 10 August 2010 00:09:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:46 UTC