Content deleted Content added
Rescuing 10 sources and tagging 0 as dead. #IABot (v1.2.5) |
GreenC bot (talk | contribs) m 8 archive templates merged to {{webarchive}} (WAM) |
||
Line 2:
==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] {{
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] {{
==Previous milestones==
Line 11:
By February 2007 the pilot project was launched and participants announced.
By October 2006, ACAP had completed a feasibility stage and was formally announced<ref>[http://www.the-acap.org/press_releases/Frankfurt_acap_press_release_6_oct_06.pdf Official ACAP press release announcing project launch] {{
==ACAP and search engines==
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>[http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2006/09/news-publishers-want-full-control-of.html News Publishers Want Full Control of the Search Results]</ref> that ACAP is unnecessary, since the ''robots.txt'' protocol already exists for the purpose of managing search engine access to websites. However, others<ref>[http://www.yelvington.com/20061016/why_you_should_care_about_automated_content_access_protocol Why you should care about Automated Content Access Protocol] {{
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.
Line 23:
==Comment and debate==
The project has generated considerable online debate, in the search,<ref>[http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060922-104102 Search Engine Watch article] {{
# 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/3624261/Acap_shoots_back/ |title=Acap shoots back |first=Ian |last=Douglas |date=2007-12-23 |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |publisher= |accessdate=2012-05-03}}</ref>
|