#252 Expand note on <availability>

GREEN
closed-accepted
Martin Holmes
5
2011-11-17
2010-10-13
James Cummings
No

http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-availability.html

Currently the note says:
"A consistent format should be adopted "

I would suggest, given recent discussions (2010-10-13) on TEI-L that at very least we might want to clarify the distinction between 'free' and 'restricted'. (Even though, I note, the example does this perfectly clearly, people are still confused about it.)

A couple options:
1) Perhaps rephrase the note along the lines of:
"If encoding multiple resources a consistent format for availability information should be adopted. The status attribute should be used to differentiate between resources entirely in the public domain and those with any form of IPR restriction (such as a particular license)."

2) Change the attribute values (open/closed, free/restricted/licensed, and other suggestions have all been made.)

It would be good to re-examine <availability> in light of developments in Rights Expression Languages to see if:
a) TEI wishes to recommend some specific XML-based language in its own namespace
b) TEI wishes to create its own general-purpose Rights Expression module
c) TEI wishes to add @target to <availability> to give a defined way to point to a machine-readable expression of rights (in whatever format)
d) TEI wishes definitely not to do none of these and leave <availability>'s content as model.pLike

-James

Discussion

1 2 > >> (Page 1 of 2)
  • Laurent Romary
    Laurent Romary
    2010-10-14

    The ticket contains complex aspects related to our rights policy. In anycase, I would support the idea of offering @target as a means to point to whatever reference there is around (and would probably take CC as an example, since many projects may want to refer to it).

     
  • Martin Holmes
    Martin Holmes
    2010-10-14

    I vote for c).

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2010-11-01

    Adding @target to <availability> doesn't seem right to me -- If anything I'd expect this rather to be where the object was available from. I think what's needed is some substructure to <availability> e.g. a <licen{cs}e> child which could then point to the applicable licence info, or contain it. Then you could have multiple licences -- which does happen. And you could retain the current loose prose, as elsewhere in the Header.

     
  • James Cummings
    James Cummings
    2010-11-20

    Lou's objections actually talk me round in this case, however, prompt another suggestion.

    I would much prefer a license child with att.typed and att.pointing (containing what? macro.paraContent?)

    So assuming that we don't want to develop a fully complete rights expression language or recommend some specific vocabulary, what about changing content model of availability to be:

    1) model.pLike+ as it is now
    2) model.pLike+ or tei:licence+ (which is member of att.typed and att.pointing containing macro.paraContent)
    3) same as 2 but instead it contains model.pLike (for multiple embedded licence paragraphs)
    4) model.pLike+ or tei:ptr+
    5) Something else I've not thought of...

    -j

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2011-03-20

    • milestone: --> 871209
     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2011-04-24

    • labels: 627821 --> TEI: New or Changed Element
    • assigned_to: nobody --> louburnard
    • status: open --> open-accepted
     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2011-04-24

    Council agreed to:
    - define new <licence> element
    - use @target on <licence> to reference existing licence agreement
    - use @datable attributes on <licence> to indicate dates of its applicability
    - use content of <licence> to specify any additional conditions, or quote the whole agreement
    All the <licence> elements within a given <availability> are considered applicable to the whole document. If parts of a document have different conditions, different <availability>s should be supplied, and selected by means of the @decls attribute.

     
  • Martin Holmes
    Martin Holmes
    2011-08-19

    Added a couple of examples to licence.xml. Still waiting for Lou's go-ahead to add <licence> to the content model of <availability> (he was acting on the ticket originally, but got stalled).

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2011-11-07

    • milestone: 871209 --> GREEN
    • assigned_to: louburnard --> martindholmes
    • status: open-accepted --> pending-accepted
     
  • Martin Holmes
    Martin Holmes
    2011-11-17

    Final changes made in revision 9775, in accordance with Council's decision in Paris, and ticket closed.

     
1 2 > >> (Page 1 of 2)