Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

CC Technology Summit 3 Update

2,592 views

Published on

An update on Creative Commons' work on CC Network and RDFa driven applications, presented at the 3rd CC Technology Summit.

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

CC Technology Summit 3 Update

  1. 1. share, reuse, and remix— legally
  2. 2. Distributed & Decentralized Work Registrations
  3. 3. or
  4. 4. A Mid-Year Update in 3 Parts
  5. 5. 1
  6. 6. RDFa Update <ul><li>Adoption continues to grow rapidly
  7. 7. Google, Yahoo indexing
  8. 8. Publishers: </li><ul><li>UK Office of Information publishing
  9. 9. MySpace
  10. 10. SlideShare
  11. 11. Flickr </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Google <ul><li>Recently announced support for RDFa in “Rich Snippets”
  13. 13. They're exploring ways to make this easier for “webmasters” </li></ul>
  14. 14. Yahoo <ul><li>Supports RDFa in many properties
  15. 15. Search Monkey lets you build “info bars”
  16. 16. BOSS lets you query for presence of metadata </li></ul>
  17. 17. 2
  18. 19. CC Network <ul><li>Launched October 2008
  19. 20. A place creators to collect work references
  20. 21. A platform for digital copyright registry exploration
  21. 22. Built on ccREL
  22. 23. Free Software: AGPL 3, available from code.creativecommons.org </li></ul>
  23. 25. CC Network <ul><li>Growth
  24. 26. Standardization
  25. 27. Development </li></ul>
  26. 28. Growth
  27. 29. Standardization <ul><li>Goal: make it easy to integrate with our tools
  28. 30. Solution: use RDFa to bind deeds + Network
  29. 31. We'll never be the only registry
  30. 32. Needed to document our practices
  31. 33. Did a thorough review of what we developed
  32. 34. Sent to OSCRI as RFC in May </li></ul>
  33. 35. http://bit.ly/work-registrations
  34. 36. Goals of the Specification <ul><li>Consistency </li><ul><li>Can a client follow one path and always arrive at an answer? </li></ul><li>Simplicity </li><ul><li>When choosing between Registries and Consumers, favor simplicity for Consumers </li></ul><li>Documentation </li><ul><li>How do we implement and test our work?
  35. 37. What do other registries do to work with the deeds? </li></ul></ul>
  36. 38. Describing Ownership User Work
  37. 39. Describing Ownership <ul><li>Three entities involved </li><ul><li>Work
  38. 40. User
  39. 41. Registration </li></ul><li>Two ways to work: </li><ul><li>Users own Works directly
  40. 42. Users own Registrations, which contain Works </li></ul></ul>
  41. 43. Ownership Model User Work Registration
  42. 44. Why Two Paths? <ul><li>Works are identified by URI
  43. 45. Users may Register “patterns” </li><ul><li>http://creativecommons.org/* </li></ul><li>Registrations may contain multiple Works </li><ul><li>Multiple versions
  44. 46. Multiple portions </li></ul><li>Registrations provide a “container”
  45. 47. Supported direct ownership for simplicity </li></ul>
  46. 48. Single Ownership Model <ul><li>Registries must publish the “Registration” metadata
  47. 49. Simplifies verification model for clients
  48. 50. Provides clear direction for adding features </li><ul><li>You may want to publish hashes, fingerprints, keys etc
  49. 51. Registration is clearly the place for most of those </li></ul></ul>
  50. 52. Lookup Service <ul><li>Previously only used to link to the Registration
  51. 53. Envisioned as a complement to Regsistration
  52. 54. Now part of the core specification
  53. 55. Used as part of the Client verification process
  54. 56. Richer results </li></ul>
  55. 57. Lookup Service: Results <ul><li>Re-use approach for describing registrations
  56. 58. Registries can just redirect to the Registration
  57. 59. Use HTTP status to indicate high level result </li><ul><li>Success (200 or 302)
  58. 60. Multiple matches (300)
  59. 61. Failure (404) </li></ul></ul>
  60. 62. Resolution <ul><li>A Consumer needs to establish a Graph for Verification
  61. 63. Previously: </li><ul><li>Retrieve the User document (has_owner)
  62. 64. Extract any RDFa
  63. 65. Follow any rdf:see_also or cc:owner_of
  64. 66. Extract any RDFa
  65. 67. Repeat up to some ill-defined limit </li></ul><li>Previously favored simplicity for Registry </li></ul>
  66. 68. Resolution <ul><li>New approach favors Consumers
  67. 69. Just use the lookup service
  68. 70. Returned document guaranteed to contain the needed graph </li></ul>
  69. 71. Specification Status <ul><li>Up for comment from OSCRI
  70. 72. Looking for feedback from people here today
  71. 73. CC Network / CC deeds will be updated later this summer </li></ul>
  72. 74. CC Network Development <ul><li>Working on updating to support revised spec
  73. 75. Developing support for group/org accounts
  74. 76. Exploring citation service
  75. 77. Exploring use a seed for better CC Search </li></ul>
  76. 78. 3
  77. 79. Science Commons MTA <ul><li>An MTA describes how biological materials can be used by researchers, collaborators
  78. 80. More complex than our copyright licenses </li><ul><li>Parameters for “engaging” the agreement
  79. 81. The basic document may describe a class of restriction, need additional details to understand it
  80. 82. May be layered with an “implementing letter” </li></ul></ul>
  81. 83. Current MTA Developments <ul><li>First iteration developed in 2007 </li><ul><li>Used the URL query string to carry additional details </li></ul><li>Working on deploying 2.0 now </li><ul><li>MTA work informed by our Attribution and CC Network tools
  82. 84. Changing our model for including “parameters” </li></ul></ul>
  83. 85. Why Change? <ul><li>Current approach is only useful to CC/SC
  84. 86. Exposing all the information enables reuse
  85. 87. We can build common tools across domains </li></ul>
  86. 89. New Tooling <ul><li>The deeds currently use a custom server-side proxy
  87. 90. Return JSON encoded nested arrays
  88. 91. Using WebBackplane's Ubiquity project to clean up the code </li><ul><li>Possible to use without server side proxy
  89. 92. Write lookups as SPARQL instead of array access
  90. 93. Easily translate from our spec to code
  91. 94. More easily test our code </li></ul></ul>
  92. 95. jSPARQL YAHOO.cc.mta.MTA_INFO = { select: [ &quot;offer&quot;, &quot;material&quot;, &quot;disease&quot;, &quot;offer_permits&quot;], where: [ { pattern: [ &quot;?offer&quot;, &quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type&quot;, &quot;http://mta.sciencecommons.org/ns#Offer&quot; ] }, { pattern: [ &quot;?offer&quot;, &quot;http://mta.sciencecommons.org/ns#agreement&quot;, document.URL ] }, ... }
  93. 96. Conclusion <ul><li>CC Network was a new way to develop for us </li><ul><li>Ignore the database, drive things with metadata </li></ul><li>Our experience there is informing other work
  94. 97. MTA, CC Network will both help us improve our core “business” – the licenses
  95. 98. Continue to see evidence that RDFa was a smart bet </li></ul>
  96. 99. Nathan R. Yergler Chief Technology Officer Creative Commons [email_address] @nyergler {twitter | identi.ca} http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Tech_Summit_3_Update

×