{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OMdoc/OMDoc/issues/269","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OMdoc/OMDoc","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OMdoc/OMDoc/issues/269/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OMdoc/OMDoc/issues/269/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OMdoc/OMDoc/issues/269/events","html_url":"https://github.com/OMdoc/OMDoc/issues/269","id":163727000,"number":269,"title":"CC module of OMDoc 1.2 mismatches CC ontology","user":{"login":"jbs1","id":6561806,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/6561806?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1","html_url":"https://github.com/jbs1","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":8,"created_at":"2016-07-04T18:27:06Z","updated_at":"2016-07-04T18:27:09Z","closed_at":null,"body":"_migrated from Trac, where originally posted by **clange** on 18-Jun-2009 11:08pm_\n\nIIRC the implementation of the CC OMDoc module did not strictly follow the CC ontology (or what existed of the ontology in 2005 or so), but it was rather loosely _inspired_ by the ontology.  Now that we'd like to use ontology-based metadata as the strict OMDoc syntax and merely keep the old CC module as pragmatic (cf. #1525 for the translation), the question is how to deal with this mismatch.\n\nMismatches are:\n * The CC ontology namespace is http://creativecommons.org/ns#, whereas the XML namespace of the old CC module is http://creativecommons.org/ns.\n * some of the CC properties in OMDoc 1.2 were represented as attributes of other CC elements (e.g. license/@jurisdiction), not as elements of their own.  Not sure if we can come up with a generally applicable translation of such syntactic attributes to strict RDFa-like metadata, but we should try.\n * permissions/prohibitions/requirements are modeled completely differently:\nOMDoc 1.2:\n```\n<permissions reproduction=\"permitted\" distribution=\"permitted\"\n            derivative_works=\"permitted\"/>\n```\nOMDoc 1.6 strict (RDFa):\n```\n<link rel=\"cc:permits\">\n <resource about=\"[cc:Reproduction]\"/>\n <resource about=\"[cc:Distribution]\"/>\n <resource about=\"[cc:DerivativeWorks]\"/>\n</link>\n```\n * in detail:\n  * different naming: permissions vs. permits\n  * spelling: DerivativeWorks (usual class name syntax) vs. derivative_works (usual attribute name syntax)\n  * attribute values: the CC ontology only allows for e.g. prohibiting commercial use, and for permitting reproduction, not vice versa.  In the CC ontology, the opposite (e.g. reproduction not permitted) is apparently not stated by saying \"prohibits reproduction\" (which would be the OMDoc 1.2 approach), but rather by _not_ saying \"permits reproduction\" -- i.e. a closed world assumption (but strange nevertheless, as RDFS/OWL are open world) -- I will try to find out more"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OMdoc/OMDoc/issues/comments/230338441","html_url":"https://github.com/OMdoc/OMDoc/issues/269#issuecomment-230338441","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OMdoc/OMDoc/issues/269","id":230338441,"user":{"login":"jbs1","id":6561806,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/6561806?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1","html_url":"https://github.com/jbs1","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-07-04T18:27:09Z","updated_at":"2016-07-04T18:27:09Z","body":"_migrated from Trac, where originally posted by **kohlhase** on 20-Jun-2009 1:16am_\n\nReplying to [comment:6 clange]:\n\n> > This would be good to have (and give the ontology some interesting defintions or rules: if bysa(D) then SA(D) and BY(D) ...).\n> Given the definitions from the above-mentioned RDFa, any RDFS reasoner can infer that\n> > Also there is potential for interaction rules between DC and CC, e.g. if BY(D) and dc:creator(D,A) then ....)\n> Interesting.  Yes, why not.  But then I vote for the following plan\n>  1. first do this as a part of the OMDoc spec to learn how it works\n>  1. but then don't keep it within the OMDoc standard, but try to convince the CC developers\n>  1. only if they don't like our approach, keep it in the OMDoc standard, otherwise contribute it to CC and refer to it from OMDoc.\nI completely agree with you. Le's do it that way. \n"}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"jbs1"}}