- From: Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:44:20 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
vroddon has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/poe: == On prohibitions living alone == I understand a prohibition living alone may bring no new information whatsoever. But I would argue the following: - **How to mark "All rights reserved" in a digital catalog?** (let's say of e-books). You can imagine a catalog, many of whose entries are waiving some rights with ODRL expressions. Great. What shall we do with those entries (e-books) which have waived no right at all? Well, no permission at all. But it is a bit weird and makes more difficult the processing. Facing a similar problem with language resources, we had to define a new license for that. Look at this: `http://purl.oclc.org/NET/rdflicense/allrightsreserved ` (If you click, by default you will get a redirect to Wikipedia's page. But it has content negotiation, if you demand RDF you will get the following odrl policy): ``` :allrightsreserved a odrl:Policy ; rdfs:comment "This license does not disclose any of the IPR and database rights.."@en ; rdfs:label "All rights reserved"@en ; cc:legalcode <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_rights_reserved> ; dct:publisher "None" ; odrl:prohibition [ odrl:action ldr:IPRRight , ldr:DatabaseRight ] . ``` - It is still useful as a reminder, even if redundant. In the first page of books I usually read "All rights reserved. You cannot fotocopy this book". Well, of course not. Still, it is nice to see it again. Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/97 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 30 January 2017 13:44:29 UTC