- From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 11:41:07 -0400
- To: Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>
- Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com, www-tag@w3.org
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com> wrote: > > On 12 Oct 2012, at 07:57, Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote: > >> I'm changing cc:license to xhv:license. I'm presuming you agree. > > It depends if this spec implies that this is the normative mechanism to link to a license, or if it is just providing examples? Let's see, "normative" = "Establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, esp. of behavior" ? Creative Commons says you should (i.e. they think it is a norm to) use xhv:license. See http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC_REL Since they're the ones who brought this kind of annotation to the Web, I think they are in a better position than anyone to propose or observe norms. I think I was the one to recommend that a document coming from the TAG ought to recognize CC as an authority and use xhv:license. Maybe that's not the best design or clearest semantics, but it's the way to do it that is most likely to be recognized by license-annotation consumers, who are more likely to have read CC's documentation, than any other. If you think something else is better maybe you should give them advice or urge them to get involved in the appropriate working group. Best Jonathan > We (in the old PLING IG) had a long discussion with the W3 Media Ontology folk [1]. > We ended up agreeing that the best compromise was to use a "policy" statement property, > and to use the XHTML vocab as the type of policy. > See Examples in section 5.1.3.2 > > Cheers... > Renato Iannella > Semantic Identity > http://semanticidentity.com > Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206 > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-10/
Received on Friday, 12 October 2012 15:41:35 UTC