W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > November 2004

RE: Global concept identification and reference: Is PSI issuing really flawed due to copyright restrictions?

From: Houghton,Andrew <houghtoa@oclc.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:34:48 -0500
Message-ID: <D53793AA582576458786FBE27899DB1801BFD5@OAEXCH2SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Sigel
> Sent: 10 November, 2004 14:08
> To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
> Subject: Global concept identification and reference: Is PSI 
> issuing really flawed due to copyright restrictions?
> Yes, there are copyright issues, but the argument that anyone 
> can issue PSIs is not fundamentally flawed because of that, IMHO.

I wasn't trying to imply or say that PSI's are fundamentally flawed,
they are an interesting concept.  But the statement that anyone 
other than the KOS publisher could publish one may be on shaky
ground.  In retrospect, "fundamentally flawed" was a gross over
statement on my part.

> You are right that a knowledge worker may not be allowed to 
> publish a certain _full_ entry.
> But in order to identify and later reference that PSI, we 
> need only _enough identifying_ information (as attributes), 
> not the full entry.
> This may also be a legal abridged paraphrase, or just the 

I still see "abridged" entries as having possible problems with
copyright.  But I think you put your finger on the issue: how
much information is needed to identify a concept vs. legal
liability.  Copyright laws vary from country to country.  My
"abridged" version could be in violation of another countries
copyright laws.  There are sticky issues here, that the PSI
document neither mentions or confronts in their broad statement
of PSI's by anyone.  I wouldn't have an issue with the document
had they kept to their initial focus of PSI's for KOS 
publishers or added some disclaimers about issues with copyright

> Nobody can prohibit me issuing this PSI and add information 
> from other public sources.

True, but they can sic a horde of angry, power hungry, attorneys 
on you.

> Some KOS publishers might be willing to provide reference 
> numbers (e.g.
> WBI - World Bibliographic Index person numbers) and a name, 
> but not much more (e.g. dates, profession). Commercial KOS 
> publishers might want to add some free content (like free 
> chapters of books) for marketing/promotional purposes and to 
> drive traffic to their site. The full content will cost money.

This seems to get a little off the topic of PSI.  Free chapters,
etc. don't help express the definition of a concept in a KOS so 
you can determine whether it applies for your intended use.  I 
agree, they could enhance the human readable concept definition 
with marketing/promotional fluff.  I didn't see anything in the 
PSI document that prohibits this and would expect KOS publishers
to do that.  The real issue is as you state next...

> The interesting question is: How much information in 
> attributes is necessary to identify the concept (here: 
> person) and how can this work with commercial publishers in 
> conflict between their need for click streams and revenues 
> and their legal interest in protecting their intellectual 
> property. But this is not a technical issue and does not flaw 
> the concept of decentrally issued PSIs in P2P fashion. 

Well stated and I agree.

Received on Thursday, 11 November 2004 07:32:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:04 UTC