Rights on the annotation and annotation body

Now that the IDPF and W3C are together, there might be some expertise
available for those questions.

The rights in the annotation ought to belong to the creator of the
annotation, but it's an interesting question whether the rights in the
annotated target "go with" the rights in the annotation.

In the analog world, the two would go together, and if the annotator
were famous, you'd have a collectible.  In the digital world, if the "fair
use" dodge applies, you'd just have a copy that anyone could copy and
whose annotations could be annotated.

Which is where an adapted use of the DOI might offer a social construct
worth more than a sneer. Consultation with the Linked Content Coalition
might help.
http://www.linkedcontentcoalition.org/phocadownload/LCC%20Manifesto%20and%20Ten%20Targets%20v1%200.pdf
Bob
Kahn is behind that.



On Friday, 20 May 2016, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','info@csarven.ca');>> wrote:

> I'm certain this came up before, so pointers would be appreciated:
>
> Are there use-cases where the rights on the annotation is different than
> the rights on the annotation body? Or is it simply because it is possible
> to associate the rights anywhere.
>
> How are implementations currently utilising this?
>
> I think part of the decision whether to use both, or one or the other is
> how it could be discovered. Are implementations pointing at the
> oa:Annotation IRI or oa:hasBody's IRI from the target (or elsewhere)? Is
> there a documented good practice here? My current implementation points at
> the oa:Annotation IRI since rest of the information can be discovered from
> there (not to mention that oa:hasBody IRI doesn't have a "part of" pointer
> back at oa:Annotations AFAIK).
>
> -Sarven
> http://csarven.ca/#i
>
>

-- 
Robert Bolick
Books On Books <http://books-on-books.com/> site
My Profile <http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/robert-bolick/4/8bb/ba2> site
OrcID <http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9543-3551>