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

Re: License unknown

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:37:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFKQJ8m=NCYw77sLnUCgfA6gcs_FGuSXwJP+gAaG1sZX4HB_Kw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joachim Baran <joachim.baran@gmail.com>
Cc: 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>, Jerven Bolleman <me@jerven.eu>, HCLS IG <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
On Monday, June 23, 2014, Joachim Baran <joachim.baran@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 22 June 2014 19:30, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','alanruttenberg@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>> What do you have against booleans? :)
>>
>   My points were:
>
>    With a boolean solution -- especially when it only denotes whether
> license lookup was tried -- it is not clear what information that bears.
> Why would this boolean ever be set to false? Regardless of it's state, what
> does it imply? It provides no further information than omitting the
> explicit licensing statement (Jerven's solution) and it does not provide
> extra labeling (Michel's solution).
>

In the case that the license is not asserted it distinguishes the case
where the publisher has made an affirmative effort to determine what the
license is, or not.

>
>
>> That seems like a sort of "too many notes" comment about Mozart's work,
>> if you can reach far enough to follow the analogy.
>>
>   I actually could not reach far enough to follow the analogy. I am also
> not sure whether analogies, metaphors or allegories are adequate to discuss
> this matter -- or any other professional topic.
>

George Lakoff (an academic) has made a persuasive case so
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0226468011?pc_redir=1403417237&robot_redir=1

>
> Kim
>
Received on Monday, 23 June 2014 13:37:41 UTC

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