Re: License unknown

  We have come to a conclusion during the call, where we decided to use a
free-text comment approach.

  See:
https://github.com/joejimbo/HCLSDatasetDescriptions/issues/65#issuecomment-46861614

Kim


On 23 June 2014 08:45, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Jerven Bolleman <me@jerven.eu> wrote:
>
>> Again, I think we should encourage more specificity than the boolean
>> property flag.
>>
>> One academic makes the following statements
>>
>> _:sillyAcademicsDataset a dct:Dataset ;
>>                   prov:wasDerivedFrom realworld:commercialDataset .
>> realworld:commercialDataset a dct:Dataset ;
>>                   :tried-to-determine-license true .
>>
>> Second Academic makes these statements
>> _:lazyAcademicsDataset a dct:Dataset ;
>>                   prov:wasDerivedFrom realworld:commercialDataset .
>> realworld:commercialDataset a dct:Dataset ;
>>                   :tried-to-determine-license true .
>>
>> Combine this knowledge
>> realworld:commercialDataset a dct:Dataset ;
>>                   :tried-to-determine-license true ;
>>                   :tried-to-determine-license false .
>>
>
> This is a better criticism. While this can happen, I'd suggest that the
> false assertion could not be asserted correctly, for the practical reason
> that a single researcher can not know if there never has been a case of
> trying to determine license.  However I would add a note of documentation
> (rdfs:comment is perfect for this) to this effect.
> Once we are dealing with asserting incorrect facts, anything goes. (I
> didn't say the property value was whether "*" tried to determine it.
> However if I tried to determine it then I know that a case of trying has
> happened. There's a reason that it isn't good practice to use unqualified
> pronouns on the web)
>
>
>> Not very helpful.
>>
>> Take the rdfs:comment approach
>> _:sillyAcademicsDataset a dct:Dataset ;
>>                   prov:wasDerivedFrom realworld:commercialDataset .
>> realworld:commercialDataset a dct:Dataset ;
>>                   dct:license [rdfs:comment "I tried to look at XXX,
>> and believe its fair use because of YYYY" ]
>>
>> _:lazyAcademicsDataset a dct:Dataset ;
>>                   prov:wasDerivedFrom realworld:commercialDataset .
>> realworld:commercialDataset a dct:Dataset ;
>>                   dct:license [rdfs:comment "Lazy academic did not
>> care to look for the license"]
>>
>> Combine this knowlege
>> realworld:commercialDataset a dct:Dataset ;
>>                   dct:license [rdfs:comment "I tried to look at XXX,
>> and believe its fair use because of YYYY" ],
>>                                    [rdfs:comment "Lazy academic did
>> not care to look for the license"] .
>>
>> Its still use full.
>>
>> Then try this
>> _:sillyAcademicsDataset a dct:Dataset ;
>>                   prov:wasDerivedFrom realworld:commercialDataset .
>> realworld:commercialDataset a dct:Dataset ;
>>                   dct:license [a :UseAtOwnLegalRisk .
>>                                     rdfs:comment "I tried to look at
>> XXX, and believe its fair use because of YYYY" ]
>>
>> Even more rich information an end user can actually use.
>>
>
> A user *reading* the comment can use it. A machine (an essential
> component, ideally, of our target audience) will have a harder time.
>
>
>> One has to think about more than one re-publisher of a dataset, as
>> that does happen in our field (see drugbank as a real life example).
>>
>
> Yes. And republishers need to think more carefully about the consequences
> of republishing copyrightable information without knowing the license terms.
>
> -Alan
>
>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jerven
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Alan Ruttenberg
>> <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Joachim Baran <
>> joachim.baran@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 23 June 2014 06:37, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> 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.
>> >>
>> >>   I cannot fathom how this could be inferred from the truth value of a
>> >> bit.
>> >>
>> >
>> > By documenting the property so as to make that explicit. How else do we
>> > understand any property value?
>> >
>> > -Alan
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jerven Bolleman
>> me@jerven.eu
>>
>
>