- 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