Hi David, On Friday 13 August 2010 17:41:07 David Singer wrote: > If I ask "is this work copyrighted and if so, by who?", I really don't want > the answer "well, I have a general statement that says something about > your or other people's rights I can give you". > > So, is there a problem with having a very specific "a copyright notice goes > here" attribute? I don't see a problem with provision for more general > rights expressions (not that I have ever seen them used), but matching > what we find on the inside fly-leaf of every book seems a reasonable thing > to do, doesn't it? > Splitting them is just adding confusion. Copyright is about right. So if you look for some stuff, you want to know if you can use it. An example in the spec as Renato has given with :policy[0].statement = "Copyright PLING Inc 2010. All Rights Reserved" ma:policy[0].type = "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab/#copyright" is much easier. It clearly notes that there are no rights given. So either you derive your usage rights from context, you give a dime or you look further into the ma:policy field... And there is no confusion left between a copyright expression in "ma:copyright" and "ma:policy" The other option to satisfy the rights expression languages folks would be to allow the full fledged licensing in ma:copyright and have all others (e.g. access control or privacy) in ma:policy. A somewhat arbitrary decision that would mean a political spin that the group really does not want to have. Best, Rigo
Received on Sunday, 15 August 2010 21:51:48 UTC