Content deleted Content added
m Tidy formatting using User:GregU/dashes.js, m:User:TMg/autoFormatter, and User:PC-XT/Advisor |
m HTTP to HTTPS for Blogspot |
||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Distinguish|text= [[Application Configuration Access Protocol]] (ACAP)}}
'''Automated Content Access Protocol''' ("ACAP") was proposed in 2006 as a method of providing machine-readable permissions information for content, in the hope that it would have allowed automated processes (such as search-engine web crawling) to be compliant with publishers' policies without the need for human interpretation of legal terms. ACAP was developed by organisations that claimed to represent sections of the publishing industry ([[World Association of Newspapers]], [[European Publishers Council]], [[International Publishers Association]]).<ref>[http://www.the-acap.org/FAQs.php#faq15 ACAP FAQ: Where is the driving force behind ACAP?]</ref> It was intended to provide support for more sophisticated online publishing business models, but was criticised for being biased towards the fears of publishers who see search and aggregation as a threat<ref name="douglas">{{cite web |url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/iandouglas/3624601/Acap_a_shot_in_the_foot_for_publishing/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091114081002/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/iandouglas/3624601/Acap_a_shot_in_the_foot_for_publishing/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=14 November 2009 |title=Acap: a shot in the foot for publishing |first=Ian |last=Douglas |date=3 December 2007
== Status ==
In November 2007 ACAP announced that the first version of the standard was ready. No non-ACAP members, whether publishers or search engines, have adopted it so far. A Google spokesman appeared to have ruled out adoption.<ref>[http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/080313-090443 Search Engine Watch report of Rob Jonas' comments on ACAP] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080318054618/http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/080313-090443 |date=18 March 2008 }}</ref> In March 2008, Google's CEO [[Eric Schmidt]] stated that "At present it does not fit with the way our systems operate".<ref>
{{cite web |url=https://www.itwire.com/ |title=ACAP | |first=Stuart |date=March 18, 2008 |publisher=iTWire |access-date=March }}</ref> No progress has been announced since the remarks in March 2008 and Google,<ref>[ In 2011 management of ACAP was turned over to the [[International Press Telecommunications Council]] and announced that ACAP 2.0 would be based on [[ODRL|Open Digital Rights Language]] 2.0.<ref>[http://www.iptc.org/site/Home/Media_Releases/News_syndication_version_of_ACAP_ready_for_launch_and_management_handed_over_to_the_IPTC IPTC Media Release: News syndication version of ACAP ready for launch and management handed over to the IPTC] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110715223737/http://www.iptc.org/site/Home/Media_Releases/News_syndication_version_of_ACAP_ready_for_launch_and_management_handed_over_to_the_IPTC |date=15 July 2011 }}</ref>
Line 16 ⟶ 26:
ACAP rules can be considered as an extension to the [[Robots Exclusion Standard]] (or ''"robots.txt"'') for communicating [[website]] access information to automated [[web crawler]]s.
It has been suggested<ref>[
|url=http://www.yelvington.com/20061016/why_you_should_care_about_automated_content_access_protocol
|title=Why you should care about Automated Content Access Protocol
|date=October 16, 2006
|website=yelvington.com
|publisher=
|access-date=March 11, 2018
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061111015733/http://www.yelvington.com/20061016/why_you_should_care_about_automated_content_access_protocol
|archive-date=November 11, 2006
|quote= }}</ref> support ACAP’s view
<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://the-acap.org/FAQs.php#faq6
|title=FAQ: What about existing technology, robots.txt and why?
|website=ACAP
|access-date=March 11, 2018
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180308070121/http://www.the-acap.org/FAQs.php#faq6
|archive-date=March 8, 2018
|url-status=live
}}</ref> that ''robots.txt'' is no longer sufficient. ACAP argues that ''robots.txt'' was devised at a time when both search engines and online publishing were in their infancy and as a result is insufficiently nuanced to support today’s much more sophisticated business models of search and online publishing. ACAP aims to make it possible to express more complex permissions than the simple binary choice of “inclusion” or “exclusion”.
As an early priority, ACAP is intended to provide a practical and consensual solution to some of the rights-related issues which in some cases have led to litigation<ref>[http://www.out-law.com/page-7427 "Is Google Legal?" OutLaw article about Copiepresse litigation]</ref><ref>[http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/comment/0,,2013051,00.html Guardian article about Google's failed appeal in Copiepresse case]</ref> between publishers and search engines.
The Robots Exclusion Standard has always been implemented voluntarily by both content providers and search engines, and ACAP implementation is similarly voluntary for both parties.<ref name="Paul 2008">{{cite magazine |last=Paul |first=Ryan |title=A skeptical look at the Automated Content Access Protocol |
No public search engines recognise ACAP. Only one, [[Exalead]], ever confirmed that they will be adopting the standard,<ref>[http://www.exalead.com/software/news/press-releases/2007/07-01.php Exalead Joins Pilot Project on Automated Content Access]</ref> but they have since ceased functioning as a search portal to focus on the software side of their business.
Line 27 ⟶ 55:
The project has generated considerable online debate, in the search,<ref>[http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060922-104102 Search Engine Watch article] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070127201118/http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060922-104102 |date=27 January 2007 }}</ref> content<ref>[http://shore.com/commentary/newsanal/items/2006/200601002publishdrm.html Shore.com article about ACAP] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061021020607/http://shore.com/commentary/newsanal/items/2006/200601002publishdrm.html |date=21 October 2006 }}</ref> and intellectual property<ref>[http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=408&res=1280_ff&print=0 IP Watch article about ACAP]</ref> communities. If there are any common themes in commentary, they are
# that keeping the specification simple will be critical to its successful implementation, and
# that the aims of the project are focussed on the needs of publishers, rather than readers. Many have seen this as a flaw.<ref name="douglas" /><ref>{{cite web |url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/iandouglas/jan2008/acapshootsback.htm |title=Acap shoots back |first=Ian |last=Douglas |date=
== See also ==
Line 37 ⟶ 65:
== External links ==
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20110712180432/http://www.the-acap.org/ Official website]
* [http://media.guardian.co.uk/columnists/story/0,,1935057,00.html Google's hunger for the news] in ''[[The Guardian]]'' newspaper
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20061111015733/http://www.yelvington.com/20061016/why_you_should_care_about_automated_content_access_protocol Why you should care about Automated Content Access Protocol] (Steve Yelvington)
Line 43 ⟶ 71:
* [http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2007/12/acap_flawed_and_broken.php Acap: flawed and broken from the start] – Martin Belam
* [http://www.laboratorium.net/archive/2007/12/08/automated_content_access_progress Automated Content Access Progress]
* [http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/departments/online/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003724998 WAN calls on Google to embrace Acap]{{Dead link|date=October 2019 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} – Editor and Publisher
== Further reading ==
Line 52 ⟶ 80:
{{refend}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=
[[Category:
[[Category:Internet bots]]
| |||