At 00:12 05/05/07, Bob Wyman wrote:
Right. We have abstract feeds and entries and we have concrete feeds
and entries. The abstract feed is the actual stream of entries and updates
to entries as they are created over time. Feed documents are concrete
snapshots of this stream or abstract feed of
On May 8, 2005, at 06:30, Walter Underwood wrote:
White space is not particularly meaningful in some of these languages,
so we cannot expect them to suddenly pay attention to that just so
they can use Atom.
Why not? We expect them not no insert other random characters there.
What do the same
If I can summarize your point:
You prefer applications that only allow one entry with the same
id per feed.
Those that don't should use a different format that has not been
defined yet.
This seems little weak an argument to me. I think we should permit
certain types
of communication to
Sunday, May 8, 2005, 9:28:08 AM, you wrote:
Robin: In my opinion, the only place an atom:copyright should appear
is at the feed level, as an assertion of ownership of the feed
document itself.
[Disregarding the name and legal meaning of the element...]
What about entry documents though,
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Roger B. wrote:
A rights description might talk about trademarks, registered
trademarks, service marks, and so forth: different from copyright.
Isolating this statement creates a misrepresentation of the argument
for using the label rights. The quoted statement is a
Robin, are we actually talking about any rights here beyond the
rights to copy (which includes display and redistribution)?
The quoted statement is a reminder that copyright is only ONE
kind of right typically treated as intellectual property right.
What other rights can be associated with
On May 7, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Robin Cover wrote:
The publication of a new Implementation Guideline by the
Open Archives Initiative (OAI) compels me to suggest once
again [1], as Norm Walsh [2], Bob Wyman [3], and others have
done before, that the name 'atom:rights' would be better
than the (current)
On 9/5/05 12:18 AM, Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What other rights can be associated with content?
Robin, Tim:
would atom:rights be the appropriate container for declarations like foo is
a trademark of (some third party), used with permission
e.
On 9/5/05 12:18 AM, Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What other rights can be associated with content? Habeas Corpus? The
right to bear arms?
trademarks?
moral rights (not just attribution)?
e.
On 8 May 2005, at 5:50 pm, Eric Scheid wrote:
would atom:rights be the appropriate container for declarations
like foo is
a trademark of (some third party), used with permission
How about an atom:footnote element? The biggest flaw in atom:rights
and atom:copyright is the absence of any hint
On 5/8/05, Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about an atom:footnote element? The biggest flaw in atom:rights
and atom:copyright is the absence of any hint for either publishers
or consumers as to how it's meant to be displayed.
That's a feature. I don't see any point in arguing over
On 9/5/05 3:30 AM, Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If people really insist on providing more encouragement to the
rights management folk in the Atom spec, then let us *please* include
something like the following in the specification in order to discourage
people from believing that
On 8 May 2005, at 6:14 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:
That's a feature.
The thing is, I have no idea where to put the atom:copyright content.
It might be a short (C)2005 Robert Sayre like you see at the bottom
of every web page, or it might be a shouty FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY
thing intended to be
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 09:08:43AM -0700, Tim Bray wrote:
Speaking as a publisher, Robin's proposal [atom:rights not
atom:copyright] meets my needs better then what we have now.
I'm +1 on atom:rights instead of atom:copyright. atom:copyright
strikes me as very limited in scope, and I agree
On 8 May 2005, at 16:35, Graham wrote:
On 7 May 2005, at 1:35 pm, Henry Story wrote:
My definition is making me wonder whether I should not in fact
accept that
link alternate is a MUST.
Not really. There's no reason why the resource an Atom entry
describes has to be visible online anywhere
On May 8, 2005, at 19:45, Eric Scheid wrote:
On 9/5/05 12:18 AM, Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What other rights can be associated with content? Habeas Corpus? The
right to bear arms?
trademarks?
If your lawyer tells you that you need to recite some legalese about
trademarks, wouldn't (s)he
On 8 May 2005, at 21:43, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote:
back home and looking at the code: could you give me a hint on how to
get the instances of AtomContent given a
com.sun.labs.tools.blog.Blog or
org.openrdf.model.Graph (I was looking at the SesameRDFFactory).
Well you can get all instances of a
On 5/8/05, Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, let me say that I am a *very* strong supporter of
intellectual property rights... I have always made my income by selling my
intellectual property and I consider the anti-IPR proponents and Free
Software evangelists to be no better
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 03:18:23PM +0100, Graham wrote:
What other rights can be associated with content?
I intend on utilizing and publishing feeds internal to my company.
While the information in the feed may be considered copyrighted, it's
really my company's information classification
19 matches
Mail list logo
