- From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 18:53:44 -0700
- To: Jason Karns <karnsj@cse.ohio-state.edu>
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-archive@w3.org, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Jason Karns wrote: > Currently, you can request a CC license in RDF format by appending > 'rdf' to the license url. > > For instance: > a) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ > b) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/rdf > > I currently link directly to the rdf version of the license in my html > documents with rel=license. You should link to the deed, not the /rdf URI. The deed contains RDFa with the license terms. > I see very few differences between the web.resource.org/cc RDF license > and the http://creativecommons.org/ns# RDF license. Correct, this was just an opportune time to move everything to our domain creativecommons.org. > Would it make sense to simply return the RDF version of the CC license > rather than transforming it into the web.resource.org version? I'm not sure I follow this question. > - matches anchors in the body and links in the head (with @rel=cc-license) So this isn't really the standard way to declare a CC license. The standard way is using RDFa, and specifically rel=license since license is working itself to being an approved XHTML reserved term. If you use rel=cc-license, none of our tools will pick it up, since we are focusing on RDFa for HTML documents. > - it correctly handles space-delimited list of @rel values excellent. > - is future compatible in that rather than keeping a library of > license information which can grow outdated with new versions, it > retrieves the rdf version of a CC deed and parses that. great! > In order to > do that, I simply tack on "/rdf" to the end of any @rel=cc-license > @href. (Unless, the link already points directly to the rdf version, > in which case, I just use it.) You should parse the RDFa instead, no need to hard-wire knowledge of the /rdf URIs (which was a bad decision I made at one point a long time ago, I think, and now we live with it though we don't encourage that people use it.) > And now for my question. Currently, the CC RDF licenses use almost > the exact same schema as the web.resource.org/cc schema. Would it be > more prudent to simply return the Creative Commons RDF document. As > it stands now, I basically just translate the creative commons rdf > into the web.resource.org/cc namespace. The only difference between > the two is the cc:license (lowercase) wrapper element. I hope I'm > being clear on this issue. The stylesheet, can be easily modified to > do either or. The comments in the stylesheet hopefully point out the > required modifications. You should use the creativecommons.org/ns# namespace from now on. We are deprecating web.resource.org/cc. You should also check out Fabien Gandon's RDFa XSLT script: http://www-sop.inria.fr/acacia/soft/RDFa2RDFXML_v_0_8.xsl since that will give you a generic way to extract all RDFa, including RDFa on CC license pages. Hope this helps! -Ben
Received on Saturday, 26 May 2007 01:53:53 UTC