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

Re: LOD Data Sets, Licensing, and AWS

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:36:50 -0400
Message-ID: <4A422BF2.4090901@openlinksw.com>
To: Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>
CC: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>, public-lod@w3.org
Leigh Dodds wrote:
> Hi,
> 2009/6/24 Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>:
>>> But your URIs conveys your point of view. The important thing here is that
>>> their is a route back to your data space; the place from which your point of
>>> view originates.
>>> If the pathways to the origins of data are obscured we are recreating
>>> yesterday's economy (imho), one in which original creators of work as easily
>>> dislocated by middlemen. An economy in which incentives for data publishing
>>> are minimal for those who have invested time and money in quality data
>>> curation and maintenance.
>> I'm not talking about obscuring any pathways. I'm talking about using
>> existing URIs and adding more information. If I publish the following RDF as
>> part of a set of reviews at http://example.com/reviews then how, in your
>> scheme, am I supposed to get attribution?
>> <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen> a foaf:weblog ;
>> rev:text "Kingsley's blog, often containing pertinent lod postings" .
> I think there are also some other circumstances in which the "URIs as
> attribution" mechanism is not sufficient:
> - Editorial. I may produce a subset of the LOD cloud which includes
> data that I consider to be of high quality or is relevant (in some
> sense) to a specific area of interest. I might reasonably want
> attribution for the effort invested there, although I've not
> contributed any additional data (indeed there's likely to be less).
> The custom dataset should be attributable and citeable. AIUI, In EU
> law I would have some rights to this database ("a database right")
> which derives from the collection and editorial input.
When you publish said data as Linked Data you will be using an HTTP URI, 
and in doing so there is implicit attribution.
If you retain the URIs of the source, or make explicit claims (e.g., 
dc:source) that expose the original data sources then everything is fine,
nobody along the value chain gets dislocated.
> - Derived Data. I may carry out some statistical analysis on LOD data,
> covering millions of triples from dozens of different sources. The
> derived data can be published as linked data, and the original
> datasets owners may reasonably expect attribution of my sources, even
> though I'm not republishing any of the original triples.
But the original data set was input for you work, and you've published 
your work using your HTTP URIs. Like the example above, dc:source 
statements exposing
each data source URI will do i.e., keep the value chain transparent.

An "Attribution Economy" is one in which each unit contribution is 
de-referencable to its originator.

Ted Nelson: referred to the above in different terms as: 
Transcopyright.   He also used the term: Transclusion, to describe what 
we commonly refer to as: mashups (Web 2.0 code hacks) and meshups 
(Linked Data emixes), today. 

> Cheers,
> L.



Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2009 13:37:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:15:57 UTC