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

Re: License unknown

From: Jerven Bolleman <me@jerven.eu>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:06:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHM_hUNboPMY_EqABFrWLihA1EHqHN0bPfcwC8oQ54Fh2VRUig@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Joachim Baran <joachim.baran@gmail.com>, Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@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>, HCLS IG <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Booleans, in this case, are like answers on a math exam without
showing your work. They might be right or they might be wrong, but no
one knows how you got there.

I think it is critical in the semantic web that you describe what you
know (you might still be wrong) as in a world where we try to share
identifiers stating what you don't know often interferes with
statements made by those who do know.

But getting back: to the issue; Warning brain dump following
The aim of the license statements is two fold. a) to state there is a
license b) to describe what the license is.

If the publisher does not know the license (e.g. "unknown") if they
use blank nodes they assert there is a license.
Which might not be true at all.

I think we could split the property: one for licensing organisation
and another for license. This allows us to say that there is no
license for this data set per se, but that you can contact a certain
organization for a different one. It also helps for those cases where
there is a free to use license with terms that are ok for academic
purposes but unfriendly to most pharma/business. e.g. in software the
AGPLv3 applies here. To help those businesses contact a licensing
organization so that they can negotiate for a different license.

On other option is one license property but model the licenses
underneath better.

_:kegg a dct:Dataset ;
           :license [owl:someValueFrom (kegg:licenseForPersonInJapan,
kegg:licenseForPersonOutOfJapan,
kegg:licenseForOrganisationOutOfJapan,kegg:licenseForOrganisationInJapan,)]

:swissprotIn1999 a dct:Dataset ;
           :license [owl:someValueFrom
             ([ rdfs:Comment "Academic use only" ],
              [ a :NegotionedLicense ;
                :from _:GeneBio ;
                :to [ a :end_user_organistation ].
              ])]


We might need to have 3rd property as well to state the copyright
applicability. e.g.

_:info a dct:Dataset ;
         :copyrightStatus :publicDomain .
or

_:info a dct:Dataset ;
         :copyrightStatus [  owl:onPropery dct:creator .
                                     :untilDateOfDeath [
                                         "Some restiction to state 75
years after creators death"
                                    ]
                                  ].
etc...

Regards,
Jerven

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Alan Ruttenberg
<alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you have against booleans? :)
>
> That seems like a sort of "too many notes" comment about Mozart's work, if
> you can reach far enough to follow the analogy.
>
> -Alan
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Joachim Baran <joachim.baran@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>   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
>>> Be always grateful, but never satisfied.
>>
>>
>



-- 
Jerven Bolleman
me@jerven.eu
Received on Monday, 23 June 2014 10:06:52 UTC

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