Begin forwarded message:From: Jirka Kosek <notifications@github.com>Subject: Re: [docbook/docbook] license tag (#71)Date: October 11, 2017 at 01:04:16 PDTTo: docbook/docbook <docbook@noreply.github.com>Cc: rlhamilton <hamilton@xmlpress.net>, Mention <mention@noreply.github.com>Reply-To: docbook/docbook <reply+004f9c38dedd7a38f5afaf4e6bc7a53d3e9f49549fa11b5792cf0000000115f5928092a169ce0b47c1a1@reply.github.com>To follow up on RDFa usage. There is special vocabulary Creative Commons Rights _expression_ Language (https://creativecommons.org/ns) which can be used for describing many copyright and license properties.
If my understanding is correct then _expression_ that particular
<legalnotice>element contains license can be done as:<legalnotice vocab="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" typeof="License"> ... </legalnotice>This vocabulary can describe other things, including jurisdiction.
So I think one way to proceed is to create more such examples and say that no change in DocBook schema is needed as information can be expressed in RDFa. Problem is that there is no single RDF vocabulary for licenses, so interchange can be little bit more difficult then with "native" DocBook markup.
Also, OP asked for
<license>element inside<copyright>. This use-case can't be solved by RDFa because there are no elements with human readable content to which you can attach RDFa. The basic idea of RDFa (and microformats and microdata) is that you add few structured bits to human readable information. So in order to fulfill original requirement it's still needed to extend content model ofcopyrightelement with eitherlicenseelement or something more generic to which RDFa could be attached.—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.