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

> 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