- From: Benjamin Young <bigbluehat@hypothes.is>
- Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 16:39:38 -0500
- To: "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>
- Cc: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAE3H5F+wrBBG1auAU7TB08JYi-7O67CwGZgyjetx1Tsjg9=Npw@mail.gmail.com>
Wow...so that vocabulary is...very..."complete." For my part, I think this WG will need to focus on something much simpler along the lines of a "hasLicense" property--who's definition would be not dissimilar to "conformsTo". Here's a handful I'd pick (one) from: http://creativecommons.org/ns#license - "A Work has license a License." http://dublincore.org/documents/2012/06/14/dcmi-terms/?v=terms#license - "A legal document giving official permission to do something with the resource." https://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#license - "license refers to a resource that defines the associated license." http://schema.org/license - "A license document that applies to this content, typically indicated by URL." If I were picking it now, I'd go with `dcterms:license` since we already define `dcterms` as an available prefix. So...assign me the action, I guess, and I'll finish scoping it to the various appropriate ranges. :) Cheers! Benjamin -- Developer Advocate http://hypothes.is/ On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken < tsiegman@wiley.com> wrote: > 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 > > Wiley > > 201-748-6884 > > tsiegman@wiley.com > > > > *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> > 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 >
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2015 21:40:11 UTC