From apps-review-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 05 09:21:36 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GKars-0000pg-KI; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:21:32 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GKQ6v-0006DR-Rv for apps-review@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:52:21 -0400 Received: from outbound.cantata.com ([208.236.123.102]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GKQ6t-0007Dg-K5 for apps-review@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:52:21 -0400 Received: from ma02exchtmp01.Cantata.com ([10.128.18.41]) by outbound.Cantata.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 4 Sep 2006 21:52:26 -0400 Received: from 10.128.41.2 ([10.128.41.2]) by ma02exchtmp01.Cantata.com ([10.128.18.41]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 01:52:25 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620 Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:47:57 -0400 From: Eric Burger To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Call for volunteers: Expert review requested for draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt Thread-Index: AcbDAe6WRTB72xsfSRSSFYgtoa2+MwLHx4vD In-Reply-To: <7B47BEC7-AFF3-4F0C-A27C-EED212453162@osafoundation.org> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Sep 2006 01:52:26.0115 (UTC) FILETIME=[EFF0F530:01C6D08D] X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:21:31 -0400 Subject: [APPS-REVIEW] Call for volunteers: Expert review requested for draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: apps-review-bounces@ietf.org Normally I'd pull from the pool of Applications Area experts. However, I haven't gotten the round-robin data base or the other accoutrements of the review process on line. There is a deadline looming, so it would be good to just get this one done. Please respond to me directly if you can do the review. Document: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt IETF LC ends: 11-Sep-2006 -- - Eric ------ Forwarded Message From: Lisa Dusseault Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:48:12 -0400 To: "Burger, Eric" Cc: Ted Hardie , James M Snell Conversation: Expert review requested for draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt Subject: Expert review requested for draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt Hi Eric, Can you assign an expert Apps reviewer for this draft: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt It's in IETF Last Call, so end of that last call would be the suggested deadline (Sept 11). Thanks! Lisa ------ End of Forwarded Message _______________________________________________ APPS-REVIEW mailing list APPS-REVIEW@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review From apps-review-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 05 09:55:43 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GKbOx-00035M-HY; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:55:43 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GKbOw-00035G-97 for apps-review@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:55:42 -0400 Received: from homer.w3.org ([128.30.52.30]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GKbOu-0007wN-UY for apps-review@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:55:42 -0400 Received: from raktajino.does-not-exist.org (homer.w3.org [128.30.52.30]) by homer.w3.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D2124F140; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 09:55:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from roessler by raktajino.does-not-exist.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GKbOr-000404-Ct; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:55:37 +0200 Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 15:55:37 +0200 From: Thomas Roessler To: Eric Burger Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] Call for volunteers: Expert review requested for draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt Message-ID: <20060905135537.GI12632@raktajino.does-not-exist.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eric Burger , apps-review@ietf.org References: <7B47BEC7-AFF3-4F0C-A27C-EED212453162@osafoundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-09-01) X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b132cb3ed2d4be2017585bf6859e1ede Cc: apps-review@ietf.org X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: apps-review-bounces@ietf.org Some notes from a very quick read (you'll want to complement this with another review): - What's the relationship between licensing information contained in a license-type link and licensing information contained in an atom:rights element? The example under 2.1 in the I-D suggests that the atom:rights is expected to reflect the license that is identified in the link element. However, there seems to be no machine-readable way to express that connection. Also, there can be multiple license links, but only one rights element. - An atom:rights element on a feed sets the default for the atom:rights elements on entries; a license link on a feed, however, is expected to apply to the metadata and NOT to the entries. Why the difference in inheritance rules and semantics? - It's probably worth noting that there are jurisdictions in which databases enjoy sui generis legal protection (e.g., the EU). In such jurisdictions, it might be reasonable to have license information that refers to the collection, not just to its metadata. - The following statement: Entry content might include or reference material from other sources. Licenses associated with an entry MUST NOT be assumed to cover such material. Implementations cannot necessarily trust that publishers have the right to license material claimed to be covered by any associated license. Care should be taken when making decisions based on the referenced license. ... takes all of the value out of this scheme. The very point of annotating content (even aggregate content) with a license is that this license be trusted. Summary: The relationship to atom:rigts should be cleaned up. The questions above about what precisely a license applies to probably points at a problem in terms of expressivity of the linking scheme -- an argument could be made that there should be machine-readable ways to express what precisely a license link is supposed to apply to. Something like rel={content-license, dataset-license, entry-default-license}? Overall, this document looks like it is in dire need of serious review from legal experts -- e.g., from the Creative Commons community. I'll point some contacts in that general area at the ongoing last call. Regards, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C On 2006-09-01 19:47:57 -0400, Eric Burger wrote: > From: Eric Burger > To: apps-review@ietf.org > Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:47:57 -0400 > Subject: [APPS-REVIEW] Call for volunteers: Expert review requested for > draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt > List-Id: Applications Review List > X-Spam-Level: > > Normally I'd pull from the pool of Applications Area experts. However, I > haven't gotten the round-robin data base or the other accoutrements of the > review process on line. There is a deadline looming, so it would be good to > just get this one done. > > Please respond to me directly if you can do the review. > > Document: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt > > IETF LC ends: 11-Sep-2006 > > -- > - Eric > > > ------ Forwarded Message > From: Lisa Dusseault > Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:48:12 -0400 > To: "Burger, Eric" > Cc: Ted Hardie , James M Snell > Conversation: Expert review requested for > draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt > Subject: Expert review requested for draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt > > Hi Eric, > > Can you assign an expert Apps reviewer for this draft: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt > > It's in IETF Last Call, so end of that last call would be the > suggested deadline (Sept 11). > > Thanks! > > Lisa > > > ------ End of Forwarded Message > > > _______________________________________________ > APPS-REVIEW mailing list > APPS-REVIEW@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review > > _______________________________________________ APPS-REVIEW mailing list APPS-REVIEW@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review