Re: Annotation Model - Rights Info

[Apologies for people who get this twice, or even three times]

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 document.

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.

Hope that helps, and any editorial suggestions for how to make this clearer
in the document would be welcomed


On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Renato Iannella <> wrote:

> In the Annotation Model Rights Informations section [1], the example Use
> Case mentions 2 licenses - one for the “Annotation" and one for the “Body”.
> However, its not clear then what the Annotation is (from an intellectual
> property rights perspective). For example, in Section 3.1 it says that
> "Typically, an Annotation has a single Body…"
> Some clarity on this would be useful.
> Also, the rights statement “MUST” be a IRI - can it not also be some
> embedded JSON?
> Renato Iannella, Monegraph
> Co-Chair, W3C Permissions & Obligations Expression (POE) Working Group
> [1]

Rob Sanderson
Semantic Architect
The Getty Trust
Los Angeles, CA 90049

Received on Friday, 30 September 2016 17:14:47 UTC