- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 18:29:20 -0400
- To: www-archive@w3.org
---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: Re: XML Research Questions Date: Friday 16 May 2003 18:28 From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org> [Note, I'm going to forward my comments to www-archive@w3.org, though I'll remove your address so it doesn't appear in the archive without your permission.] On Tuesday 13 May 2003 18:25, Jordan Gimbel wrote: > XML schemas ("XML Schemas and computer language copyright: Filling in the > Blanks in Blank Esperanto by Doug Phillips arguing that XML schemas > represent a merger of idea and expression thus raising questions about > protection) & ("The Copyrightability of New Works of Authorship: XML > Schemas as an example" by Trotter Hardy supporting a conclusion that XML > schemas are copyrightable.) Jordan, I read the two papers and continue to feel that I don't see any basis for distinguishing between a DTD and schema with respect to their ability to be copyrighted: if one can be, so can the other. Unfortunately, I didn't find either paper all the instructive with respect to the question whether schemas are copyrightable material for the following reasons: 1. The cited case law (related to abstraction, merger and dictionaries) is relevant to the question of schemas, but still seems rather removed. I'd be more interested in the statutes and and case law related to the copyrightability of computer programs. 2. While there are very few technical mistakes it feels as if the authors are not that familiar with the technology. For example, they fail to distinguish (though I think the ground is eventually covered) the difference between the copyrightability of a schema and the extention of its copyright to all instances written in that schema. For example, is an XML instance that is conformant to an XML schema a derivation? That's the interesting question to me. Plus, both authors lightly touch on the question of rewriting a schema in arbitrary ways such that it still describes the same set of valid document instances, but then move on. It'd be better to perhaps define those class of documents (perhaps in terms of an Infoset, or some model...) and alternative grammars such as DTDs or RelaxNG in describing the valid class of document instances. If you write a Schema that defines a class of valid documents, and I do the same with RelaxNG, is that infringement? Also, they ignore the interesting question of someone specifying the same structure, but of in a different namespace. 3. And the policy parts are speculative with respect to competition, anti-trust, and economic incentives for production. Interesting, but unsatisfying absent actual cases studies or contemporary issues. For example, are organizations now asserting copyright with respect to their schemas? Yes. Do they explicitly extend this to all valid instances? Interesting question. The W3C does, but I wonder about proprietary formats. ------------------------------------------------------- -- Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature/ W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Friday, 16 May 2003 18:30:55 UTC