Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-metadata - Re: Restrictive ranges confuse me.

cc-metadata AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Enrico Silterra <es287 AT cornell.edu>
  • To: discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work <cc-metadata AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Restrictive ranges confuse me.
  • Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:49:09 -0400


Thanks for helping me out with this, Aaron.

I think it's real easy to come up with cases where one license Permits
CommercialUse, and another license Prohibits it. I guess you are saying that
whenever that might be true, the license can just permit "Distribution".
For this particular case, when CommercialUse is "permitted" then, you don't need to mention that, because you can grant it by granting a wider permission.

But we have additional permissions, which are specifically described in contracts
that we have with vendors, with names like InterLibraryLoanUsingPrintOrFax.
Some vendors prohibit this, some explicitly permit this.
Once again, we could say that the permission to give out this object in some way, is already part of
Distribution, and we only need to document exceptions to this. Fair enough.

What is true, is that nobody will ever give us any kind of blank permission for Redistribution or
Modification, so we will never be able to use that in any description of anything we are using. We will only have a series of atomic and specific actions, and things not mentioned in our contracts are pretty much forbidden.

Maybe we are trying to push this schema too far.
and really we need our own, because we are actually describing "contracts" between parties, a series of mutual obligations, and the CC scheme does not seem to lend it self to describing any obligations on the provider of the object.(?)

Thanks a lot Aaron,
Cheers,
Rick



At 12:34 PM 4/29/2004 -0500, Aaron Swartz wrote:
> The RDF schema, seems, to me, to require that each possible Use, or Action be
> created twice, once as a Permission, and once as a Prohibition.
> This is because the range of the permits property is .... Permission.
> and the range of the prohibits property is Prohibition.
>
> 1) Am I misunderstanding the use of the range? or how this schema is meant
> to be used?

I think a little. The idea was that things would be established
against a baseline of copyright. Large general copyright uses would be
permitted (redistribution, modification, etc.) and some smaller things
would be prohibited (commercial use, obscenity, etc.). I can't imagine
many (or any) instances where there would be something that one
license would allow and another would prohibit.

So, for example, if one license prohibits commercial use, other
licenses don't have to explicitly permit it (it's implied in the more
general permissions of Reproduction and Distribution that all forms
are allowed).

> 2) Do I need to create my various new Actions twice, once as Prohibitions,
> once as Permissions?

Well, the same action could be both, but unless you have an actual
instance where you have one license granting only X and another
prohibiting X (if so, let me know), then I'd just define it as the one
you're actually using it for.

I hope this helps,

- Aaron Swartz, schema author
_______________________________________________
cc-metadata mailing list
metadata AT creativecommons.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-metadata

******************************
Enrico Silterra
Meta Data Engineer
107-E Olin Library
Cornell University
Ithaca NY 14853

Voice: 607-255-6851
Fax: 607-255-6110
E-mail: es287 AT cornell.edu
http://www.library.cornell.edu/cts/
******************************




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page