- From: Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 06:46:15 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
I am strongly in favour of it. I think we need a something to meed "everything", for the two examples that I provide next: **First example: All rights reserved.** ``` <http://purl.org/NET/rdflicense/allrightsreserved> a odrl:Policy ; rdfs:label "All rights reserved"@en; dct:publisher " None" ; rdfs:comment "This license does not disclose any of the IPR and database rights"@en ; cc:legalcode <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_rights_reserved> ; odrl:prohibition [ odrl:action ldr:IPRRight, ldr:databaseRight; ] . ``` I was more precise and I distinguished between copyright and database right, also limiting the prohibition in a very specific manner. odrl:use is not precise because the asset can still be read if it is in the internet for example: we only forbid copyright-protected actions like "distribute" o "copy". For completitude, this is the opposite example: **Second example: something is in the public domain** Please note again that by using ldr:IPRRight, ldr:databaseRight the actions permitted are very clear. I still cannot use the resource to commit defamation. Thus... .... I am in favour in declaring odrl:use .... I would even declare two actions for odrl:IPRight and odrl:databaseRight (but without declaring further hierarchies, as this is jurisdiction dependant). I would define databaseRight using CreativeCommons's formula: "database rights, wherever they exist". ``` <http://purl.org/NET/rdflicense/publicdomain> a odrl:Policy ; rdfs:label "Public domain"; dct:publisher " None" ; cc:legalcode <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain> ; rdfs:comment "This statement can be applied to material truly in the public domain (because rights have expired, forfeited or are innaplicable)." ; odrl:permission [ odrl:action ldr:IPRRight, ldr:databaseRight; ] . ``` -- GitHub Notification of comment by vroddon Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/140#issuecomment-297921173 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 28 April 2017 06:46:22 UTC