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

Re: Content License Expression?

From: Benjamin Young <bigbluehat@hypothes.is>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 16:28:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CAE3H5FKfkH7VQh_n2buVT7WRXOR_u_+A5-BoQApB28+ja091QA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>
Cc: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
+1 and thanks for the link, Tzviya! I figured somebody was working on it. :)

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> It may indeed be in scope; in any case, discussing it through an issue is
> probably a good idea (even if the group may decide not to follow up on it).
>
> Ivan
>
> On 5 Nov 2015, at 04:05, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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>
> 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?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Benjamin
>> --
>> Developer Advocate
>> http://hypothes.is/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Information Standards Advocate
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305
>
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2015 21:28:43 UTC

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