Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14

Michael,

On 24 Mar 2012, at 21:59, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 09:04:14PM +0000, Jeni Tennison wrote:
>> I suspect that consumers won't want to make any assumptions and will just hoover up all the data that they can from wherever they can.
>> I suspect that publishers will mostly want to provide just information about the probe URI at the probe URI, and more details about licensing/provenance at the description URIs.
> 
> But the licensing information refers to the description URI. What are the
> conditions for the data available at the probe URI ? Do we have to introduce
> some rule that if X describedby Y, then every licencing/provenance information
> at Y also holds for X ? Will the courts see it this way, too ?


If you are a consumer who cares about the license of the data you're crawling (and yes, I think every consumer should but no I don't think every consumer does), the only thing that you can rely on is that if you somehow know that U is an information resource (eg it's the target of a describedby link or you got there through a 303) and a license has been asserted for U then the information within the document you get at U is licensed under that license.

So in the case above, you have to assume that the license about Y only applies to the data available at Y. You can only have information about the license of the data that is returned when you resolve X if you know that X is an information resource too (eg if X contains a statement in which it is the object of a :describedby relationship).

This leads to more accurate inferences about licensing than the current state of affairs where we go to http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/3192446387/ and find:

  <http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/3192446387/> 
    dcterms:title "Can you help? My K2 Sidebar Manager is screwy" ;
    dcterms:date "January 12, 2009" ;
    dcterms:creator <http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/> ;
    cc:attributionURL <http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/> ;
    cc:license <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en> ;
    .

and all of the information, including the license, is actually about the photograph identified by http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/3192446387/ and not the HTML page or the data it contains, which is in fact covered by http://info.yahoo.com/legal/uk/yahoo/utos-173.html.

Cheers,

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com

Received on Saturday, 24 March 2012 22:43:36 UTC