Automated Content Access Protocol: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:27, 27 July 2012

Revision as of 12:41, 11 December 2012

Line 4:

==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]</ref> In March 2008, Google's CEO [[Eric Schmidt]] stated that "At present it does not fit with the way our systems operate".<ref>[http://www.itwire.com/content/view/17206/53/ IT Wire report of Eric Schmidt's comments on ACAP]</ref> No progress has been announced since the remarks in March 2008 and Google ,<ref>[http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/06/improving-on-robots-exclusion-protocol.html Improving on Robots Exclusion Protocol: Official Google Webmaster Central Blog]</ref>, along with Yahoo and MSN, have since reaffirmed their commitment to the use of [[robots.txt]] and [[Sitemaps]].

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]</ref>

Line 22:

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.

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.

==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]</ref>, content<ref>[http://shore.com/commentary/newsanal/items/2006/200601002publishdrm.html Shore.com article about ACAP]</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 linking themes to the 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/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>

== See Alsoalso ==

* [[Sitemaps]]

Line 44:

* [http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/531181.php Google rejects adoption of Acap standard] - journalism.co.uk

{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2011}}

[[Category:World Wide Web]]