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 12:18:01 -0400
Message-ID: <4A4251B9.1000303@openlinksw.com>
To: Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>
CC: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>, public-lod@w3.org
Leigh Dodds wrote:
> 2009/6/24 Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>:
>   
>> My comments are still fundamentally about my preference for CC-BY-SA.  Hence
>> the transcopyright reference :-)
>>     
>
> Unfortunately your preference doesn't actually it make it legally
> applicable to data and databases. 
> The problem, as I see it,  at the
> moment is that this is what the majority of people are doing: using a
> CC license to capture their desire or intent with respect to
> licensing, rights waivers, attribution, intended uses, etc. The
> disconnect is between what people want to do with the license, and
> what's actually supported in law.
>
>   
>> I want Linked Data to have its GPL equivalent; a license scheme that:
>>
>> 1.  protects the rights of data contributors;
>> 2.  easy to express;
>> 3.  easy to adhere to;
>> 4.  easy to enforce.
>>     
>
> Then the best way to do this is to engage with the communities that
> are attempting to do exactly that: the open data commons and creative
> commons. We shouldn't be encouraging people to do the wrong thing and
> use licenses and waivers that don't actually do what they want them to
> do. The science commons protocol is a good example of best practices
> w.r.t data licensing that are being agreed to within a specific
> community; one that has a a long standing culture of citation and
> attribution.
>
> IMHO much of the advice and reasoning that has gone into the
> definition and publishing of the science commons protocol is
> applicable to the the web of data as a whole. Convergence on a commons
> -- which can still support and encourage attribution through community
> norms -- is a Good Thing.
>   

To save time etc..

What is the URI of a license that effectively enables data publishers to 
express and enforce how they are attributed? Whatever that is I am happy 
with. Whatever that is will be vital to attracting curators of high 
quality data to the LOD fold.

If you have a an example URI even better.

>   
>> As I stated during one of the Semtech 2009 sessions. HTTP URIs provide a
>> closed loop re. the above. When you visit my data space you leave your
>> fingerprints in my HTTP logs. I can follow the log back to your resources to
>> see if you are conforming with my terms. I can compare the data in your
>> resource against my and sniff out if you are attributing your data sources
>> (what you got from me) correctly.
>>
>> If all the major media companies grok the above, there will be far less
>> resistance to publishing linked data since they will actually have better
>> comprehension of its inherent virtues and positive impact on their bottom
>> line.
>>     
>
> I'm not sure that understanding the value of a unique uri for every
> resource, and the benefits of a larger surface area of their website,
> is the primary barrier to entry for those companies. One might build
> similar arguments around SEO and APIs. IMO, the understanding has to
> come through the network effects created by opening up the data for
> widest possible reuse. Clear and liberal licensing is a part of that.
>   

Take a look at Freebase, and how they are effectively doing what I 
espouse. Google uses Freebase URIs, and they attribute by URI.

I see Freebase using CC-BY-SA to effectively propagate their URIs. I 
also see all consumers of Freebase URIs honoring the terms without any 
issues.

Kingsley
> Cheers,
>
> L.
>
>   


-- 


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2009 16:18:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:21 UTC