Michael, On 24 Mar 2012, at 21:59, Michael Brunnbauer wrote: > On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 09:04:14PM +0000, Jeni Tennison wrote: >> I suspect that consumers won't want to make any assumptions and will just >> hoover up all the data that they can from wherever they can. >> I suspect that publishers will mostly want to provide just information about >> the probe URI at the probe URI, and more details about licensing/provenance >> at the description URIs. > > But the licensing information refers to the description URI. What are the > conditions for the data available at the probe URI ? Do we have to introduce > some rule that if X describedby Y, then every licencing/provenance information > at Y also holds for X ? Will the courts see it this way, too ?
If you are a consumer who cares about the license of the data you're crawling (and yes, I think every consumer should but no I don't think every consumer does), the only thing that you can rely on is that if you somehow know that U is an information resource (eg it's the target of a describedby link or you got there through a 303) and a license has been asserted for U then the information within the document you get at U is licensed under that license. So in the case above, you have to assume that the license about Y only applies to the data available at Y. You can only have information about the license of the data that is returned when you resolve X if you know that X is an information resource too (eg if X contains a statement in which it is the object of a :describedby relationship). This leads to more accurate inferences about licensing than the current state of affairs where we go to http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/3192446387/ and find: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/3192446387/> dcterms:title "Can you help? My K2 Sidebar Manager is screwy" ; dcterms:date "January 12, 2009" ; dcterms:creator <http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/> ; cc:attributionURL <http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/> ; cc:license <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en> ; . and all of the information, including the license, is actually about the photograph identified by http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/3192446387/ and not the HTML page or the data it contains, which is in fact covered by http://info.yahoo.com/legal/uk/yahoo/utos-173.html. Cheers, Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
