RE: Creative Commons RDF

I still think the use of POWDER is much more appropriate :)

Thanks for the pointer!

-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Ayers [mailto:danny.ayers@gmail.com] 
Sent: 08 February 2007 11:03
To: Ivan Herman
Cc: Paul Walsh, Segala; Kjetil Kjernsmo; public-sweo-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Creative Commons RDF

On 08/02/07, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> Something like that is the ultimate goal of CC. That is also the reason
> that CC is one of the biggest proponent of RDFa, and that CC's Ben Adida
> is chairing that particular task force!

fyi, there's already a lightweight way to refer to a CC license
(rather than embed it), using the rel-license microformat:

<a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" rel="license">cc
by 2.0</a>

This can be interpreted as RDF via GRDDL. There's a demo  (Joe
Lambda's Homepage) at [2], which uses grokCC.xsl at [3].

Ah, I'd better cc the grddl-wg on this - I just noticed the demo and XSLT
use:

rel='cc-license'

rather than

rel='license'

(Although the GRDDL result will presumably be the same).

Cheers,
Danny.

[1] http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-license
[2] http://www.w3.org/2004/lambda/Sites/
[3] http://www.w3.org/2003/12/rdf-in-xhtml-xslts/grokCC.xsl



-- 

http://dannyayers.com

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.30/674 - Release Date: 07/02/2007
15:33

Received on Thursday, 8 February 2007 14:27:47 UTC