Nice, this is the kind of analysis of real-world URIs we need.

Personally, I think there's quite a bit of difference between the
"repository page" of a repository or typical library system, and a
youtube page.

The difference is embedded in the youtube text you quote:

mån 2009-01-26 klockan 18:30 +0000 skrev Pete Johnston:
> The YouTube ToS says:
> 
> > you agree not to access User Submissions (defined below) or other
> content made available on the Website (including YouTube Content, as
> defined below) through any technology 
> > or means other than the video playback pages of the Website itself,
> the YouTube Player, or such other means as YouTube may explicitly
> designate for this purpose; 

Note "video playback pages" - i.e. the pages are not primarily "metadata
pages" but "video playback pages". That's a huge difference to me.

The fact that they contain metadata does not make them metadata pages.
If you had to click to a second page to get to the video, noone would
link to the metadata pages. The pages are for all intents and purposes
video pages, i.e. Items.

Of course some metadata *is* embedded in those pages. But that's not
very unusual for content in general, so it's not an argument per se.

The fact that there are *other* URIs describing some "lower-level",
ehrmmm, access points to the videos also does not matter much - to me
those are more to view as artefacts of the implementation. That is also
a reasonable interpretation of the Terms above -Youtube wants to feel
free to change the implementation. 

So, in summary, I'd like to make an important distinction between
"splash pages" that are just metadata, and requires you to click through
to get to the content, and "functional pages" where you actually
*access* the content without further ado.

/Mikael

> 
> http://uk.youtube.com/t/terms
> 
> which, it seems to me, suggests that disseminating the URI of the Flash
> resource for stand-alone use (rather than disseminating the embed code
> for the YouTube player) might not be permitted without their permission.
> 
> 
> I suppose one way around this (while maintaining the Flash object =
> Copy/Item approach) might be not to record a URI for the Item (i.e. use
> a blank node in RDF terms) and include something in the Item/Copy
> description "saying" that it's the resource "embedded in" the specified
> page. That would require an extension to the current SWAP profile, I
> think, but I have the freedom to do that in the other profile I'm
> working on.
> 
> An alternative approach might be to treat the Scribd/SlideShare/YouTube
> page as a sort of composite Copy/Item (an exemplar of a corresponding
> "composite" Manifestation). On the one hand this means citing the URI
> which those services promote, but on the other, it would seem somewhat
> at odds with the SWAP aim of distinguishing between the content and the
> "splash page".
> 
> Any thoughts would be welcome :-)
> 
> Pete
> 
> ---
> Pete Johnston
> Technical Researcher, Eduserv Foundation
> [log in to unmask] 
> +44 (0)1225 474323
> http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/
> http://efoundations.typepad.com/efoundations/
> 
-- 
<[log in to unmask]>

Varning! E-post till och från Sverige, eller som passerar servrar i
Sverige, avlyssnas av Försvarets Radioanstalt, FRA.
WARNING! E-mail to and from Sweden, or via servers in Sweden, is
monitored by the National Defence Radio Establishment.