W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > December 2009

Re: attaching multiple licenses

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 09:01:38 -0500
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0912070601l74c68d24g989b9b7f8005361f@mail.gmail.com>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Cc: Georgi Kobilarov <georgi.kobilarov@gmx.de>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-12-06 at 19:40 +0100, Georgi Kobilarov wrote:

> Two methods spring to mind. The first is reification. It's probably not
> an excellent solution though - consumers would need to be specially
> aware of the fact that you're using reification, and that they should
> dereify your data.
>
> Something like:
>
>        [ a rdf:Statement ;
>          rdf:subject <http://example.org/resource/Madonna> ;
>          rdf:predicate <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name> ;
>          rdf:object "Madonna Veronica Louise Chicone" ;
>          ex:statementLicence </public-domain-declaration> ] .

Just want to point out that OWL 2 provides a documented way of doing
this: Axiom Annotations. Same style of encoding, but with a
specification that will last and doesn't have the same confusion that
rdf reification brings.

http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-mapping-to-rdf-20091027/#Translation_of_Axioms_with_Annotations

http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Annotations

That said, this only addresses the technical point above. I've passed
on the query to some other folks at Creative Commons in case they have
some clearer thoughts. But one question that came up immediately was
whether there was a single license that was compatible with the whole
set.

The emerging trouble on this, to my mind, points to why CC0 is the way
to go for data publishing, whenever you have a choice:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ

-Alan
Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 14:02:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 14:02:13 GMT