- From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 01:57:14 +1000
- To: Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk>
- Cc: Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>, "public-odrl@w3.org" <public-odrl@w3.org>
Sent from my iPad > On 11 Apr 2015, at 1:31 am, Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote: > > >> On 2015-Apr-10, at 13:22, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I haven't followed the entire thread, but found what I read interesting... So, a Few thoughts below. >> >> Perhaps there is a claim and a predicate. Ie: educational use + definition;(taxcode,act,common law, custom definition); and probably important also, is "choice of law", which is the region for which the definition is interpreted (and if necessary, which jurisdiction, et.al) >> >> Have "choice of law" as a separate determining factor that aids with the interpretation of these other definitions… > > Yes, but the whole point of attaching fixed identifiers to the purposes is to provide clarity around the definition - if you can’t define it clearly, there’s no point in providing the identifier... > >> So, effective support might also notate the definition context, such as the uri for " UK section 35[1] of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988" as listed below, or even the link for the copyright clause of the U.S. Constitution. > > Well, actually, given that §35 refers to an actual scheme, you just identify membership of the scheme, which is very concrete and not open to any interpretation - but of course you can’t do that with everything... > >> Taxation definitions may suffice...yet isn't that a choice of interpretation/definition? > > Well, this is broadly my point: if there’s a concrete definition which works in a given context, people should use them - but I’d be very wary of adding broad *poorly-defined* terms to the ODRL vocab. > >> Non-commercial -- wouldn't that be defined as non-profit? Again, tax law does provide some mechanics around non-profit, however, the traceability of components is also important, as something may transition between non-profit and for-profit markets, and/or have the flexibility to do so… > > This is the problem with non-commercial: there is no single definition that matches everybody’s interpretation and intention simultaneously. > > Bear in mind this is about *use* and not the environment. > > Corporation law defines what a non-profit entity may be (which actually usually defines that it can make a profit, it just has to do certain things with it, and which may include things that people who think “non-profit” don’t like). That concept is orthogonal to “used for non-profit purposes” or “used for non-commercial purposes”. > > If I find employment as a freelance designer if I create a portfolio piece incorporating CC BY-NC material, is that “commercial use”? One licensor may well disagree with another on that point. > > German courts have taken a very narrow definition of -NC: > > https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140326/11405526695/german-court-says-creative-commons-non-commercial-licenses-must-be-purely-personal-use.shtml > > CC themselves have an 18MB (18!!) PDF report which basically boils down to ‘everyone’s glossing over the fact that nobody *really* agrees on what it means’: > > http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/defining-noncommercial/Defining_Noncommercial_fullreport.pdf > Reminds me of something Nic suzor wrote: http://nic.suzor.net/commons >> Rdf in Creative Commons could allow for the traceability of the license, and therefore offer an alternative somehow? >> >> I imagine odrl extending these concepts further.. > > CC has a REL, and it’s been mapped across to ODRL, but only tells you what the text does: i.e., that there’s a vague term used for a permission/restriction, but not what the intention of the creator is, or give any real guidance as to how you might interpret it. > > However, RDF (and, actually, XML) do give you the flexibility to disagree on this, which is what I meant (below) — if you don’t need to worry about one single definition of ‘non-commercial’ (and don’t need to ‘ratify’ any particular one), then a thousand flowers can bloom - but in reality probably only two or three. > >> >> >>> Given that, I’d be really wary of *ODRL* defining a term representing either of these, unless we define it in a very particular way and make it clear that other people are welcome to define alternative terms which meet their own needs and use those instead. Personally, I’d *just* do that latter part, and steer well clear of getting embroiled in the specifics. >>> >>> This approach also has the advantage of promoting extensibility over sheer openness; historically a number of vocabularies ended up being “forked” as a means to extensibility even when the forked version was substantially identical to the (still-evolving) original - large standards bodies being particularly bad offenders in this realm — which does kind of serve to defeat the purpose of namespace-driven extensibility somewhat. Taking this tack allows domain-expert pockets of the community to reach non-conflicting consensus and ODRL itself can just document these various extensions (so, best of both worlds). >>> >>> The upshot being that if Europeana wants to define what “educational use” might mean as far as they’re concerned, then other people might adopt that, or they might not, and ODRL can just point to it (indeed, a wiki page listing various ODRL-extension vocabs over time would be quite nice). Of course, some of these may also be collected together into identifiable profiles, but need not necessarily be. >>> >>> M. >>> >>> [1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/35 >>> >>> [2] http://www.era.org.uk >>> >>> [3] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/174 >>> >>> [4] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/section/4 >>> >>> -- >>> Mo McRoberts - Chief Technical Architect - Archives & Digital Public Space, >>> Zone 2.12, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA. >>> >>> Inside the BBC? My movements this week: http://neva.li/where-is-mo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk >>> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and >>> may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. >>> If you have received it in >>> error, please delete it from your system. >>> Do not use, copy or disclose the >>> information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender >>> immediately. >>> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails >>> sent or received. >>> Further communication will signify your consent to >>> this. >>> ----------------------------- > > > -- > Mo McRoberts - Chief Technical Architect - Archives & Digital Public Space, > Zone 2.12, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA. > > Inside the BBC? My movements this week: http://neva.li/where-is-mo > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 10 April 2015 15:57:48 UTC