Availability analysis in output

[AAMike]

Present output (both blurb and PDF) doesn't go through the availability logic.

That is, a termination right —

• may have existed and expired
• may presently exist
• may not yet exist, but be expected in the future

This is the " [[is presently/was/will be]]" language in conclusion key A. Should use the tense appropriate given the relationship between the present time and the termination window.

Problem example pictured below (in the case of a future right) Related issue to be created regarding output of window information.

[AAMike]

In the proposed decision tree, the termination window looks like "term_begin" to "term_end" while notice looks like "notice_begin' to "notice_end."

Let me know if that clarifies things at all.

There is one weird case where two windows might generate, that is, where we don't know whether or not a grant included the publication right. In that case, we should provide both (and I'll write some copy that states that only one of the two possible windows will apply).

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Rob Myers notifications@github.com wrote:

@AAMike https://github.com/AAMike - Where should the window ranges be generated? Are they part of the 203 analysis (which doesn't currently seem to be generating them in this case) or an additional step?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/creativecommons/termination-of-transfer/issues/24#issuecomment-243293751, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APtKWBRBpit8DpT7b-E79KIGTVEfSR-gks5qk3JbgaJpZM4Jk9FW .

Michael Wolfe

Executive Director | Authors Alliance http://authorsalliance.org | 510.480.8302 | @Auths_Alliance

[rheaplex]

I'd not incorporated a change to the 203 code that ensured the window was generated where appropriate, doing so has helped greatly. :-)

Having more than one window requires tracking them and deleting them separately if the user presses the back button in the questionnaire. If we can give them different names and explicitly generate them separately that will make my life easier. :-)

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 5:09 PM, AAMike notifications@github.com wrote:

In the proposed decision tree, the termination window looks like "term_begin" to "term_end" while notice looks like "notice_begin' to "notice_end."

Let me know if that clarifies things at all.

There is one weird case where two windows might generate, that is, where we don't know whether or not a grant included the publication right. In that case, we should provide both (and I'll write some copy that states that only one of the two possible windows will apply).

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Rob Myers notifications@github.com wrote:

@AAMike https://github.com/AAMike - Where should the window ranges be generated? Are they part of the 203 analysis (which doesn't currently seem to be generating them in this case) or an additional step?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/creativecommons/termination-of-transfer/issues/24# issuecomment-243293751, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APtKWBRBpit8DpT7b- E79KIGTVEfSR-gks5qk3JbgaJpZM4Jk9FW .

Michael Wolfe

Executive Director | Authors Alliance http://authorsalliance.org | 510.480.8302 | @Auths_Alliance

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/creativecommons/termination-of-transfer/issues/24#issuecomment-243295360, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABU8tp1Vf-q6MsOUY7IA973KcDwyhBHks5qk3SmgaJpZM4Jk9FW .

[AAMike]

So the one instance where two windows would generate, the proposed tree calls the second window "p_term_begin" (p for publication) &c. Do you need another naming structure beyond that?

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Rob Myers notifications@github.com wrote:

I'd not incorporated a change to the 203 code that ensured the window was generated where appropriate, doing so has helped greatly. :-)

Having more than one window requires tracking them and deleting them separately if the user presses the back button in the questionnaire. If we can give them different names and explicitly generate them separately that will make my life easier. :-)

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 5:09 PM, AAMike notifications@github.com wrote:

In the proposed decision tree, the termination window looks like "term_begin" to "term_end" while notice looks like "notice_begin' to "notice_end."

Let me know if that clarifies things at all.

There is one weird case where two windows might generate, that is, where we don't know whether or not a grant included the publication right. In that case, we should provide both (and I'll write some copy that states that only one of the two possible windows will apply).

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Rob Myers notifications@github.com wrote:

@AAMike https://github.com/AAMike - Where should the window ranges be generated? Are they part of the 203 analysis (which doesn't currently seem to be generating them in this case) or an additional step?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/creativecommons/termination-of-transfer/issues/24# issuecomment-243293751, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APtKWBRBpit8DpT7b- E79KIGTVEfSR-gks5qk3JbgaJpZM4Jk9FW .

Michael Wolfe

Executive Director | Authors Alliance http://authorsalliance.org | 510.480.8302 | @Auths_Alliance

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/creativecommons/termination-of-transfer/issues/24# issuecomment-243295360, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABU8tp1Vf- q6MsOUY7IA973KcDwyhBHks5qk3SmgaJpZM4Jk9FW .

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/creativecommons/termination-of-transfer/issues/24#issuecomment-243298212, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APtKWD4hFBHa3mUKzTyfbo-4g4Jn3Pgbks5qk3kDgaJpZM4Jk9FW .

Michael Wolfe

Executive Director | Authors Alliance http://authorsalliance.org | 510.480.8302 | @Auths_Alliance

[AAMike]

Any updates on this issue? This is the major outstanding piece and, once it's set, I think we can move on to sharing the tool with expert reviewers.

[peterspdx]

While this is tackled, let's draft the invite to the group of pre-public set of reviewers. I won't have time until Friday, if you do then great otherwise I'll target then.

Shall we agree on next Monday or Tuesday to circulate?

[AAMike]

This sounds good. I can hope on a google doc Friday, if that makes sense.

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Diane Peters notifications@github.com wrote:

While this is tackled, let's draft an the invite to the group of reviewers. I won't have time until Friday, if you do then great otherwise I'll target then.

Shall we agree on next Monday or Tuesday to circulate?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/creativecommons/termination-of-transfer/issues/24#issuecomment-245367566, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APtKWNhwlvZPfJECn2DFmP9TRi9ZFLhGks5qnv0vgaJpZM4Jk9FW .

Michael Wolfe

Executive Director | Authors Alliance http://authorsalliance.org | 510.480.8302 | @Auths_Alliance

[peterspdx]

@robmyers Any update on when this issue might be resolved? Thanks!

[rheaplex]

I'm sorry for dropping the ball on this. I'll work on it tomorrow, I'm out today.

The second window name is clear, I will make sure I haven't mangled that in the code and then I will expose it in the PDF generation.

[rheaplex]

The calculations and display are implemented in commit fafbc87 .

I have deployed the modified code to labs.

If this looks good then we are ready. :-)

[AAMike]

Excellent! Will take a look soon as I get a moment—looking forward to seeing this go out!

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Rob Myers notifications@github.com wrote:

The calculations and display are implemented in commit fafbc87 https://github.com/creativecommons/termination-of-transfer/commit/fafbc8754b424d16855625018ba99fdd2de9bb2f .

I have deployed the modified code to labs.

If this looks good then we are ready. :-)

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/creativecommons/termination-of-transfer/issues/24#issuecomment-247206162, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APtKWPoQeTMr9pa3T07m0NIcJUKmtWK-ks5qqJ18gaJpZM4Jk9FW .

Michael Wolfe

Executive Director | Authors Alliance http://authorsalliance.org | 510.480.8302 | @Auths_Alliance

[peterspdx]

Rob Rocks.

Thank you! Mike and I talk next Thursday, though I'd like to launch it sooner for the private expert review. Will keep you posted.

Diane

Diane M. Peters General Counsel, Creative Commons Portland, Oregon http://creativecommons.org/staff#dianepeters 13:00-21:00 UTC

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Rob Myers notifications@github.com wrote:

The calculations and display are implemented in commit fafbc87 https://github.com/creativecommons/termination-of-transfer/commit/fafbc8754b424d16855625018ba99fdd2de9bb2f .

I have deployed the modified code to labs.

If this looks good then we are ready. :-)

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/creativecommons/termination-of-transfer/issues/24#issuecomment-247206162, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AF19vCIRPInAbbASMn1_MNBBjWLZKeVWks5qqJ17gaJpZM4Jk9FW .

[rheaplex]

Let's all give the current version one more walk-through to make sure we (the royal we ;-) ) haven't missed anything and then we can be confident in sending it for review?

[AAMike]

Sounds good; I have this in my agenda for today.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Rob Myers notifications@github.com wrote:

Let's all give the current version one more walk-through to make sure we (the royal we ;-) ) haven't missed anything and then we can be confident in sending it for review?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/creativecommons/termination-of-transfer/issues/24#issuecomment-247389255, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APtKWELhG3juCvYlPz-OXHRMZpcQPvMVks5qqXs9gaJpZM4Jk9FW .

Michael Wolfe

Executive Director | Authors Alliance http://authorsalliance.org | 510.480.8302 | @Auths_Alliance

[AAMike]

Shoot—still not seeing the windows in the PDF output. Could this be on my end / could the update not be fully deployed?

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Michael Wolfe mike@authorsalliance.org wrote:

Sounds good; I have this in my agenda for today.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Rob Myers notifications@github.com wrote:

Let's all give the current version one more walk-through to make sure we (the royal we ;-) ) haven't missed anything and then we can be confident in sending it for review?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/creativecommons/termination-of-transfer/issues/24#issuecomment-247389255, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APtKWELhG3juCvYlPz-OXHRMZpcQPvMVks5qqXs9gaJpZM4Jk9FW .

Michael Wolfe

Executive Director | Authors Alliance http://authorsalliance.org | 510.480.8302 | @Auths_Alliance

Michael Wolfe

Executive Director | Authors Alliance http://authorsalliance.org | 510.480.8302 | @Auths_Alliance

[rheaplex]

Eek. I did deploy but I'll check it went properly on Friday. Which values are you using? I used 1968 for every date.

On 15 Sep 2016 11:09 p.m., "AAMike" notifications@github.com wrote:

Shoot—still not seeing the windows in the PDF output. Could this be on my end / could the update not be fully deployed?

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Michael Wolfe mike@authorsalliance.org wrote:

Sounds good; I have this in my agenda for today.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Rob Myers notifications@github.com wrote:

Let's all give the current version one more walk-through to make sure we (the royal we ;-) ) haven't missed anything and then we can be confident in sending it for review?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/creativecommons/termination-of-transfer/issues/24# issuecomment-247389255, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APtKWELhG3juCvYlPz- OXHRMZpcQPvMVks5qqXs9gaJpZM4Jk9FW .

Michael Wolfe

Executive Director | Authors Alliance http://authorsalliance.org | 510.480.8302 | @Auths_Alliance

Michael Wolfe

Executive Director | Authors Alliance http://authorsalliance.org | 510.480.8302 | @Auths_Alliance

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/creativecommons/termination-of-transfer/issues/24#issuecomment-247525490, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABU8hM77_RKs5F9VS7oO5-E82lgCgXRks5qqjKkgaJpZM4Jk9FW .

[AAMike]

I was using 1978 throughout.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016, 18:32 Rob Myers notifications@github.com wrote:

Eek. I did deploy but I'll check it went properly on Friday. Which values are you using? I used 1968 for every date.

On 15 Sep 2016 11:09 p.m., "AAMike" notifications@github.com wrote:

Shoot—still not seeing the windows in the PDF output. Could this be on my end / could the update not be fully deployed?

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Michael Wolfe <mike@authorsalliance.org

wrote:

Sounds good; I have this in my agenda for today.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Rob Myers notifications@github.com wrote:

Let's all give the current version one more walk-through to make sure we (the royal we ;-) ) haven't missed anything and then we can be confident in sending it for review?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub < https://github.com/creativecommons/termination-of-transfer/issues/24# issuecomment-247389255>, or mute the thread < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APtKWELhG3juCvYlPz- OXHRMZpcQPvMVks5qqXs9gaJpZM4Jk9FW> .

Michael Wolfe

Executive Director | Authors Alliance http://authorsalliance.org | 510.480.8302 | @Auths_Alliance

Michael Wolfe

Executive Director | Authors Alliance http://authorsalliance.org | 510.480.8302 | @Auths_Alliance

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub < https://github.com/creativecommons/termination-of-transfer/issues/24#issuecomment-247525490 , or mute the thread < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABU8hM77_RKs5F9VS7oO5-E82lgCgXRks5qqjKkgaJpZM4Jk9FW

.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/creativecommons/termination-of-transfer/issues/24#issuecomment-247528082, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APtKWKOFfnJ7I-_8qDCHVJMAxZzig94yks5qqjfRgaJpZM4Jk9FW .

[rheaplex]

1978 throughout gives me this on labs:

Which is obviously still broken, I'll fix that.

1968 throughout gives me this:

If you're not seeing the same it may be worth hard refreshing the page in your browser, or trying in an anonymous window.

[rheaplex]

Fixed in commit 75e1011 , those changed are deployed to labs and I have tested them there.

[AAMike]

OK, for straight 1978, I get a result PDF but still don't see anything about notice or termination windows. With straight 1968, I am successfully generating the correct results.

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Rob Myers notifications@github.com wrote:

Fixed in commit 75e1011 https://github.com/creativecommons/termination-of-transfer/commit/75e101192bb0c4724d5a738235c5a60ec269a170 , those changed are deployed to labs and I have tested them there.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/creativecommons/termination-of-transfer/issues/24#issuecomment-247670748, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APtKWImxnxZ3UhBTDjDG5EYBVDJRfPgVks5qqt0tgaJpZM4Jk9FW .

Michael Wolfe

Executive Director | Authors Alliance http://authorsalliance.org | 510.480.8302 | @Auths_Alliance

[rheaplex]

Try force-refreshing the page to make sure the new JavaScript is loaded:

F5

or

Shift-Control R

If that doesn't work then it's something different in the other answers we're giving and we should definitely track that down. I answer "no" to most questions except "has the work been published" and "did one or more of the authors enter into the agreement".

[AAMike]

OK, that seems to have fixed things! Sorry!

Will play around with a few more permutations over the next 24 hours to ensure there aren't any obvious problems, but then I think we can release.

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Rob Myers notifications@github.com wrote:

Try force-refreshing the page to make sure the new JavaScript is loaded:

F5

or

Shift-Control R

If that doesn't work then it's something different in the other answers we're giving and we should definitely track that down. I answer "no" to most questions except "has the work been published" and "did one or more of the authors enter into the agreement".

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/creativecommons/termination-of-transfer/issues/24#issuecomment-247908406, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APtKWExw1o-hCTNHjLr5z3vcvhpEcpy2ks5qrgq1gaJpZM4Jk9FW .

Michael Wolfe

Executive Director | Authors Alliance http://authorsalliance.org | 510.480.8302 | @Auths_Alliance

[rheaplex]

Awesome. If anything leaps out let me know and I'll get right on it.