[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
VL funding
Tim et al.,
1. I think we have consensus on how to solve one part of the problem of
sponsorship--individual maintainers are free to have individual sponsors for the
bottom of their particular VL pages. However, I think it would be a lot easier
for some of us to find sponsors if we could put the logo at the top a la GNN,
perhaps not quite as obtrusive but at least a postage stamp logo sitting to the
right of the VL icons.
2. I must say that I'd be reluctant to turn over copyright for the entire WWW
VL Literature to W3C unless it was clear that I was receiving some substantial
value in return, or unless I could make some important reservations. The WWW VL
Lit is not just a laundry list but a whole system of lists and resources,
including probably at least 100 pp. of text, reviews, etc. that I have composed.
There's a lot of editorial value added.
3. I agree with the goals of keeping it free to users, keeping it neutral, and
always aiming for higher and higher quality and consistency. I worry a bit
about having too much look and feel consistency imposed; my Lit page has its own
unique style, but people seem to like it, and most importantly, I do! I think
one of the major advantages the WWW VL has over other subject indexes such as
Yahoo and GNN's WIC is the cumulative high expertise of the individual subject
maintainers; I'd like to see us continue to have a lot of editorial freedom.
4. We need a more systematic approach to the larger issue of how to get
sponsorship for the VL as a whole. I concur that effective control of
distribution rights and development of sponsorship is best accomplished if there
is a central organizer, and I think the current discussion illustrates that
there is a strong need for active leadership from W3C in that role. Maybe we
should organize some sort of Working Group on the theme of VL Sustainability.
Regards,
Fred Z
> In response for the need for a clear copyright status on
> the virtual library, a possibility would be to make it a
> condition of participation that copyright be transferred
> to the W3 Consortium
> (ie MIT) to be made available to the general public,
> with the
>
> understanding that MIT would keep it available to the
> public on the web for free, with a constraint that
> sponsorship and authorship notices be retained in all
> copies made. This is basically how it works with
> contributed W3C code. This could allow MIT to act on
> behalf of all authors in
>
> allowing for example publication of paper snapshots,
> with any income fed back into the VLib. Without a
> transfer to a single copyright it is very difficult to
> control distribution or negotiate sponsorship or paper
> publication fees. Afterward, it is possible to work
> with an advertizing agency or funding body. There is an
> option. Another possibility to perform the role of
> MIT/W3C would be ISoc.
>
> It seems to me that it is reasonable to allow
> sponsorship and a sponsor space on the bottom of pages
> (and reasonable of those of you who are doing it on
> employer time to acknowledge your employer as a sponsor
> in effect!)
>
> I have heard of complaints that some really good bits of
> the library are on the end of slow links. We could
> certainly solve this by setting up a mirror on the W3C
> site of the whole VLIB. The W3C site is already
> mirrored in Switzerland and Massachusetts and we plan to
> increase that. The availability of the library is a
> quality factor which doesn't cost as much as your
> valuable time authoring it.
>
> I feel that the library as an unbiased and free
> framework for anyone to find things on the web by
> subject is incredibly valuable, and one of the best
> answers to the complaint that the web is a mess. So
> keeping it free, keeping it available, and keeping it
> neutral and always aiming for higher and higher quality
> and consistency are very important. I think you are all
> doing a really great job, and really helping the web in
> general by it. Keep it up!
>
> Tim BL
Follow-Ups:
References: