[VoCamp Discuss] Licenses...

[Ben Adida]

My 2 cents:

xh:license should subclass dct:license
cc:license should subclass dct:license
rel-license should map to xh:license

In fact, if you look at http://creativecommons.org/ns, it contains RDFa
that maps cc:license as a subproperty of dct:license :)

-Ben

Peter Mika wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> We just have a very successful VoCamp [1] behind our back, where we
> started to discuss among others the issue of representing popular
> microformats in RDF. This is a pressing question because large scale
> semantic platforms such as Sindice or Yahoo's SearchMonkey would like to
> treat microformats at the RDF level  and at the scale at which some of
> our systems work there is no possibility for reasoning. Therefore an
> agreement on the mapping is required. It doesn't matter as much what
> this agreement is, as long as it is an agreement ;)
> 
> You can see the outcomes of our current effort at [2]. One of the
> problems we spotted was related to rel-license. It appears we have at
> least three terms for license:
> 
> #1 http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#license
> #2 http://creativecommons.org/ns#license
> #3 http://purl.org/dc/terms/license
> 
> Unfortunately, none of the ontologies provide any clues as to how these
> relate to each other...
> 
> So my questions are: how are these related, in particular are any of the
> subproperties or equivalents of others? If yes, should any of these be
> deprecated in favor of others? And lastly, what should be the canonical
> mapping of rel-license in RDF?
> 
> Thanks,
> Peter
> 
> [1] http://vocamp.org [2] http://semanticweb.org/wiki/Microformats_in_RDF