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 16:39:38 -0500
Message-ID: <CAE3H5F+wrBBG1auAU7TB08JYi-7O67CwGZgyjetx1Tsjg9=Npw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>
Cc: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
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

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