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

Re: Ontology license info

From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 07:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1311086094.62049.YahooMailClassic@web112612.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
To: valentina presutti <vpresutti@gmail.com>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
FWIW ... this issue is more subtle than first appears.  A license (metadata) is often treated as a matter of 'style', contrary to a first principle of XML.  Don't let this happen to your Ontology ... you've been warned.

e.g. http://www.rustprivacy.org/cc0.pdf

--- On Tue, 7/19/11, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Ontology license info
> To: "valentina presutti" <vpresutti@gmail.com>
> Cc: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
> Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2011, 8:42 AM
> How about usung dc:license as an
> ontology annotation. That's what
> we've done, using cc-by or cc0 as the license.
> 
> -Alan
> 
> On Tuesday, July 19, 2011, valentina presutti <vpresutti@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 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 14:35:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:34 UTC