W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > November 2015

RE: Content License Expression?

From: Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:10:23 +0000
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, Benjamin Young <bigbluehat@hypothes.is>
CC: W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ca3aab13c9ae477fa71ed5e52d426911@CAR-WNMBP-006.wiley.com>
You might want to check in with the not-yet chartered Open Licensing Expression WG [1]

[1] http://w3c.github.io/ole/charter.html

Tzviya Siegman
Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead

From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 3:06 PM
To: Benjamin Young
Cc: W3C Public Annotation List
Subject: Re: Content License Expression?

We also had an early request from the Creative Commons folks that the model should explicitly say how licenses can be associated with resources.   Any proposal here would need to be clear as to the extent of the license, e.g. that it only covers the resource it is associated with and not any resources otherwise referenced from that resource ... so a license on the Annotation does not convey any rights regarding either Body or Target.

If we want to consider this in scope, then I can raise an issue and proposal.

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Benjamin Young <bigbluehat@hypothes.is<mailto:bigbluehat@hypothes.is>> wrote:
Hi all,

Should we specify a method for stating the license of quotations in relation to TextQuoteSelector (rashly assuming a license can be programmatically found for the target's contents)?

Relatedly, I'm also wondering if we need this ability for the annotation and/or bodies themselves (if they're inlined at least).

For instance, publicly visibile Hypothes.is annotation are released under the terms of the CreativeCommons.org CC0 license (essentially "Public Domain"). That said, we don't currently express that in the JSON anywhere (but would like too!), and if/when we do that, it would be best to *not* unintentionally state that the highlighted text (which is included in the TextQuoteSelector) be considered to be under that same license.

We certainly accommodate this granularity now (with the improved multiple bodies work), but do we need to specify it explicitly? or leave that up to other vocabularies and implementations to work out?

Developer Advocate

Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2015 20:11:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:42 UTC