Fwd: Re: [LODD] LODD Hack Session Notes - Is It Open request signatories needed

FYI.  -Scott

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Egon Willighagen" <egon.willighagen@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 9, 2011 3:10 AM
Subject: Re: [LODD] LODD Hack Session Notes - Is It Open request signatories
needed
To: "M. Scott Marshall" <mscottmarshall@gmail.com>

Hi Scott,


On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:59 AM, M. Scott Marshall
<mscottmarshall@gmail.com> wrote:
> Would you ple...
http://www.opendefinition.org/

Also recommended are the Panton Principles: http://pantonprinciples.org/


> Is OKFN describing itself as a standards body?
I do not know when something is a standards body. From the website:

"The Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF) is a not-for-profit organization
founded in 2004 and dedicated to promoting open knowledge in all its
forms. It is a leader in this field nationally and internationally."

I would say they are a de facto standards body.


> You refer to LODD "definitions" and OKFN "standards".
That is arbitrary, and I did not intend to imply anything with that.
>From my perspective, the LODD (and HCLS at large) is setting

standards.

> I don't understand the Diseasome reference - what precisely does
> Diseasome have to d...
As said, I do not know the definition of Open in LODD. From the
current use, I would guess it simply means 'has access to', without
implying anything on rights to use, modify, or redistribute the data,
or the rights to remix it with other data.


> As I recall, Barabasi et al. specifically gave LODD (and Susie)
> permission to create and publis...
This is a good illustration of the issues we are facing. What
permissions have been given? Can users of the Diseasome SPARQL end
point know they can use that data. Can the locally fix the data, if
they find inconsistencies? Can they redistribute the data when they
publish their paper, allowing referees to review what they did?


> Correction (sorry, I think that we need to be precise here): LODD is
> not a working group but a ...
OK.


> However, in LODD, we are planning to follow W3C WG procedures for
> a best practices W3C note tha...
It's kind or ironic that I am so sloppy with terminology here... but
then again, this is probably why I care about ontologies, as they help
me to be precise :)


> While editing our (HCLS) "Emerging Best Practices" article, I found no
> evidence of an "CCZero" ...
Correct. CCZero is, for example, used here:

http://www.opendefinition.org/licenses/cc-zero/

And points to CC0.


> Or have I somehow gotten this wrong? Once
> we've got URIs, potentially from a License Ontology, ...
Agreed. Rather use one URI and lots of owl:sameAs.


> Thanks again to you and others (several from HCLS IG) for your efforts
> in clarifying licensing ...
I do like to stress that these issues may not at all be issues to
either the HCLS interest group or the LODD task force. However, they
are issues to me as a scientist using these LODD resources.

Egon

--

Dr E.L. Willighagen
Postdoctoral Researcher
Institutet för miljömedicin
Karolinska Institutet
Homepa...

Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 21:57:14 UTC