Automated Content Access Protocol: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:23, 6 January 2015

Revision as of 05:57, 22 October 2016

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] {{wayback|url=http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/080313-090443 |date=20080318054618 |df=y }}</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] {{wayback|url=http://www.itwire.com/content/view/17206/53/ |date=20080318122928 |df=y }}</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] {{wayback|url=http://www.iptc.org/site/Home/Media_Releases/News_syndication_version_of_ACAP_ready_for_launch_and_management_handed_over_to_the_IPTC |date=20110715223737 |df=y }}</ref>

==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] {{wayback|url=http://www.the-acap.org/press_releases/Frankfurt_acap_press_release_6_oct_06.pdf |date=20070610171119 |df=y }}</ref> at the [[Frankfurt Book Fair]] on 6 October 2006. A pilot program commenced in January 2007 involving a group of major publishers and media groups working alongside search engines and other technical partners.

==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] {{wayback|url=http://www.yelvington.com/20061016/why_you_should_care_about_automated_content_access_protocol |date=20061111015733 |df=y }}</ref> support ACAP’s view<ref>[http://www.the-acap.org/faqs.php#existing_protocols ACAP FAQ on robots.txt] {{wayback|url=http://www.the-acap.org/faqs.php#existing_protocols |date=20070315105714 |df=y }}</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.

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] {{wayback|url=http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060922-104102 |date=20070127201118 |df=y }}</ref> content<ref>[http://shore.com/commentary/newsanal/items/2006/200601002publishdrm.html Shore.com article about ACAP] {{wayback|url=http://shore.com/commentary/newsanal/items/2006/200601002publishdrm.html |date=20061021020607 |df=y }}</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/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>

Line 37:

* [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)

* [https://web.archive.org/web/20061114082058/http://www.wildlyappropriate.com/article/139/automated-content-access-protocol-why Automated Content Access Protocol: Why?] - Wildly Appropriate

* [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 ]