Re: GRDDL - grokCC.xsl

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 license information which can grow outdated with new versions, it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