W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > July 2011

Re: Ontology license info

From: M. Scott Marshall <mscottmarshall@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:10:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CACHzV2MN5NDqGjNXXhWHFywtVo-juC6LUw48oz+fFBitxoYkMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luigi Selmi <selmi_luigi@hotmail.com>
Cc: vpresutti@gmail.com, public-lod@w3.org, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
In HCLS, we've generally looked to VoID for guidance on RDF to
describe the graph itself:

That is different in practice than 'embedding' the info in the
ontology because it means adding VoID statements about the graph URI
to the graph itself. The idea here is to make the info
SPARQL-accessible although I suppose that SPARQL access would also
enable you to extract the info as well if you use the 'embedded' RDF

In this context, it would be nice to have a comprehensive set of URIs
that refer to the various license types unambiguously. I suppose that
CC might have done something like that too and have been meaning to
ask.. CCing Alan for his insight.


M. Scott Marshall, W3C HCLS IG co-chair, http://www.w3.org/blog/hcls

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Luigi Selmi <selmi_luigi@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The CC license RDFS vocabulary (at the end of the page).
> Ciao
> Luigi
>> From: vpresutti@gmail.com
>> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:23:23 +0200
>> CC: vpresutti@gmail.com
>> To: public-lod@w3.org
>> Subject: Ontology license info
>> Hi everybody,
>> I could not find any suggestion of good practices for attaching a license
>> to an ontology.
>> Of course one can report it on its documentation (for humans), but I was
>> wondering if there is any diffuse practice for embedding this info in the
>> ontology as a property value (for machine readability).
>> Any suggestion?
>> Thanks for the help
>> Val
Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2011 12:11:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:15 UTC