oscri AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Oscri mailing list
List archive
- From: "Joe Benso" <joebenso AT gmail.com>
- To: "Nathan Yergler" <nathan AT creativecommons.org>
- Cc: oscri AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [Oscri] Desired CC Technology Summit outcomes
- Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 21:04:33 -0500
Hi all,
In response to Nathan's questions, the RC team would like to contribute...
* How do we identify content between registries? (ie, "are URIs enough?")
URI + optional physical copy at registry
: * What is the minimal feature set you need to make a truly useful registry?
technically: hash-code, timestamp, licensing-templates (CC, GPL,...)
organisation: trusted, long-term-operation, conformant to digital signature
laws in jurisdiction of country of operation, have database registered with
national data protection agencies
: * How are misuses/misclaims policed?
define revocation procedure in policy, registry must publish any withdrawn
works
: What questions are you hoping to have answered next week? What do you
: see as valuable outcomes?
Joint promotion of registries
Be aware, that there are already many registries out there (look at libraries,
music industry, film industry, ...)
Authority needs to co-operate with IFPI, patent offices, etc
Registration authority should not charge fee, in order to be attractive also
for micro-registries.
Best,
Joe Benso
Registered Commons
-
[Oscri] Desired CC Technology Summit outcomes,
Nathan Yergler, 12/05/2008
-
Re: [Oscri] Desired CC Technology Summit outcomes,
Mario Pena, 12/07/2008
- Re: [Oscri] Desired CC Technology Summit outcomes, Javier Prenafeta, 12/08/2008
-
Re: [Oscri] Desired CC Technology Summit outcomes,
Joe Benso, 12/08/2008
- Re: [Oscri] Desired CC Technology Summit outcomes, Mike Linksvayer, 12/10/2008
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: [Oscri] Desired CC Technology Summit outcomes, Juan Palacio, 12/07/2008
-
Re: [Oscri] Desired CC Technology Summit outcomes,
Mario Pena, 12/07/2008
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.