Re: [web-annotation] Clarification on the usage of rights in the example use case

The first issue is "What does it mean to have a license associated 
with an Annotation and a different one associated with a Body".  The 
intent is that the Annotation document and its semantics can be used 
according to the license associated with it.  That could be more or 
less restrictive than any rights asserted over the Body, Target or 
other resource.

Per the example in the model document, Ramona wants to be knows as the
 author of the Body content, and does not want that document to be 
used commercially, and hence asserts CC-BY-NC for the Body.  However 
the annotation does not include the Body directly, nor can one infer 
any properties of the Annotation as relating to any given Body.  The 
Annotation is the document that links the Body (or Bodies) to the 
Target (or Targets), and Ramona is happy for anyone to use this 
document in any way they want, hence asserts CC-0. 

Another scenario is where the creator of the Annotation is not the 
creator of the Body or Target.  I could link a video on Youtube as the
 body to an image in Flickr as the target, without being the rights 
holder for either of those two resources. I can put my Annotation 
under CC-0 without affecting the rights of the video or image.

Editorial action to consider how this might be clarified in the 

The second issue is whether some expression of the rights statement 
can be embedded within the Annotation.  The intent of the working 
group is to not allow this, as it complicates the model and there 
isn't a good normative reference for what implementers should expect 
to encounter (that we know of).  Instead, if there are (now or in the 
future) such expressions, they can be published at an IRI and that IRI
 referenced from the Annotation.  If there is a compatible (e.g. RDF 
with JSON-LD expression) model available, a future version of the 
specification could refer to it directly.

So the answer to the second part is no, it MUST be an IRI, per the 
specification.  No action needed for this, beyond perhaps a little 
more text in the model document to clarify the intent.

GitHub Notification of comment by azaroth42
Please view or discuss this issue at
 using your GitHub account

Received on Friday, 30 September 2016 17:13:10 UTC