W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > June 2014

Re: License unknown

From: Joachim Baran <joachim.baran@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 12:55:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAObSwHVN5a6yRT6P4jsXKD1JJ5RBt2SLJskDV1cjFaKyZH43VQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@gmail.com>
Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "M. Scott Marshall" <mscottmarshall@gmail.com>, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, "Gray, Alasdair J G" <A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk>, Jerven Bolleman <me@jerven.eu>, HCLS IG <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
  I am sure we can work out the exact predicate later. The issue I raised
was about not using boolean.


On 20 June 2014 12:51, Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>      Hello,
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Joachim Baran <joachim.baran@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 20 June 2014 12:41, Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>   Also, makes me wonder why the EBI has not already been contacted and
>>> the license determined? Is that because we didn't have the resources to do
>>> so or because different end users might end up being granted different
>>> licenses?
>>>
>>   That is my point exactly!
>>
>
>>   Even though the licensing information is not available, there is an
>> indication where to obtain it from (here, in this example, EBI).
>>
>
>   Actually, my point is to first answer the question I asked.
>
>   If not only you don't know the license, but you also don't know why you
> don't know, it is indeed hard to say anything about the license.
>
>   If all you want to say is who grants the license, you might want to
> consider something like:
>
>   ex:myData   ex:canBeLicensedForEndUseBy   ex:EBI
>
>      Best,
>      Oliver
>
>
> --
> Oliver Ruebenacker
> Founder at Relomics Consulting <http://www.relomics.com>
> Be always grateful, but never satisfied.
>
Received on Friday, 20 June 2014 19:55:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:09 UTC