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

RE: URIs and intellectual property

From: Carl Mattocks <carlmattocks@checkmi.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:24:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <24216.216.163.247.1.1100892289.squirrel@webmail.netcarrier.com>
To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Al:
I agree with the fact that it is an orthoganal state of affairs.

I accept that an ISBN is a form of indirect identification ....
that is assigned for publishing .. and has no relationship to whomever
authored it.
However, when an indirect identification identifies an authored asset ...
without changing that  authored asset ... I contend it strengthens the
claim of the author to be the original 'thought / IP owner'

carl


<quote who="Miles, AJ (Alistair)">
>
> Hi Carl,
>
>> I acknowledge that publishers may have these fears and would
>> like them to
>> understand that the indirect approach provides an opportunity to
>> strengthen their position as an authority and promote their IP rights.
>
> Actually I strongly disagree with this.
>
> The method of identification (direct or indirect) is completely orthogonal
> to the issue of copyright or intellectual property.
>
> Compare referring to a book (directly) via its ISBN number, and referring
> to
> it (indirectly) via the combination of it's title and author.
>
> Al.
>
>
>>
>>
>> carl
>>
>> <quote who="Miles, AJ (Alistair)">
>> >
>> > Hi Carl,
>> >
>> >>  However, if a publisher did not employ this exemplary approach (to
>> >> protect their investment?) then (of course) an indirect URI
>> >> must be used.
>> >
>> > If I understand you correctly, I just wanted to comment on
>> this, because
>> > it
>> > seems there is a misconception that by publishing URIs for
>> concepts a
>> > thesaurus owner is somehow giving up their intellectual property.
>> >
>> > The reason why I think this is a misconception is explained
>> nicely in:
>> >
>> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/#id-access
>> >
>> > I.e. it's like saying that giving a book an ISBN number violates the
>> > copyright.
>> >
>> > Al.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Thus for pragmatic purposes I  encourage the use of indirect
>> >> identifiers
>> >> as an architectural approach.
>> >>
>> >> <quote who="Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com">
>> >>
>> >> >> I suggest you follow Dublin Core's exemplary lead and use
>> >> >> URIs without fragment identifiers to identify your terms.
>> >> >> You'll be in very good company, and such an approach is
>> >> >> fully compatible with the PR version of AWWW and every
>> >> >> semantic web spec produced by the W3C to date.
>> >> >
>> >> > To be more specific, and more accurate regarding my
>> >> > original meaning, I suggest that you use 'http:' URIs
>> >> > without fragment identifiers to identify your terms.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carl Mattocks
>>
>> co-Chair OASIS (ISO/TS 15000) ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC
>> co-Chair OASIS Business Centric Methodology TC
>> CEO CHECKMi
>> v/f (usa) 908 322 8715
>> www.CHECKMi.com
>> Semantically Smart Compendiums
>> (AOL) IM CarlCHECKMi
>>
>
>


-- 
Carl Mattocks

co-Chair OASIS (ISO/TS 15000) ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC
co-Chair OASIS Business Centric Methodology TC
CEO CHECKMi
v/f (usa) 908 322 8715
www.CHECKMi.com
Semantically Smart Compendiums
(AOL) IM CarlCHECKMi
Received on Friday, 19 November 2004 19:24:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:52 GMT