Re: Question about schema.org in a triple store?

That is understood, but the key issue for some adopters seems to be

	• ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

If you develop a commercial product or specificiation that builds upon schema.org, thus binds you to release the result under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, too.

The question is what "remix, transform, or build upon the material" means. For instance, if you add schema.org markup to your HTML, does that mean that your whole HTML page must be released the under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license?

There are potential implications that are problematic for adopters of schema.org.

This is why GoodRelations uses the broader Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license, which just requires attribution.

 
Best wishes / Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Martin Hepp


On 16 Jul 2014, at 10:20, Matthias Tylkowski <matthias@binarypark.org> wrote:

> Hello Everyone,
> as the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License states you can do anything with the  Schema classes and properties what you like: put them in your triple store, mix them with other ontologies, use them im your software, ...
> 
> Regards
> Matthias Tylkowski
> 
> Technischer Leiter
> Binarypark UG (haftungsbeschränkt)  
> Erich-Weinert-Str. 1
> 03046 Cottbus
> Tel +49 (0)355 692931
> Fax +49 (0)355 694171
> 
> info@binarypark.org
> http://binarypark.org  
> Am 16.07.2014 09:48, schrieb Marc Twagirumukiza:
>> Hi there, 
>> +1  Bernard. 
>> I would debate this topic of  reusing schema.org predicates and classes in other vocabularies in two ways: 
>> One, purely licence level. There, like my colleague am not a lawyer but I think we need to handle this in simple way: schema.org would decline any responsibility of any use of the predicates/classes beyond defined EUL. No prevent to re-use but this doesn't bind schema.org terms and conditions. 
>> The second level is at scientific/consistency level: e.g. schema.org documentation says: "It is also explicitly not a goal to support automated reasoning, medical records coding, or genomic tagging, all of which would require substantially more detailed (and hence high barrier-to-entry) modeling and markup". Currently schema.org is being largely used in clinical model patterns-despite this statement, but again here it's at  user's risk. 
>> Further discussions on this may be required. 
>> 
>> Kind Regards,
>> 
>> Marc Twagirumukiza | Agfa HealthCare
>> Senior Clinical Researcher | HE/Advanced Clinical Applications Research
>> T  +32 3444 8188 | M  +32 499 713 300
>> 
>> http://www.agfahealthcare.com
>> http://blog.agfahealthcare.com
>> Click on link to read important disclaimer: http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From:        Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> 
>> To:        "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> 
>> Cc:        Lloyd Fassett <lloyd@azteria.com>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org> 
>> Date:        16/07/2014 09:22 
>> Subject:        Re: Question about schema.org in a triple store? 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi all
>> 
>> And what about reusing schema.org predicates and classes in other vocabularies? 
>> See http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/details/vocabulary_schema.html for various (and growing) use and reuse cases. When the copyright ontology (of all vocabularies) at http://rhizomik.net/ontologies/copyrightonto.owl asserts that cro:PublicPlace rdfs:subClassOf  schema:Place 
>> Does it bind by schema.org terms and conditions? 
>> And when I copy this triple here, do I?
>> 
>> There are so many ways a vocabulary class and predicate can be used, either in the open Web or in data or application silos, that it seems impossible to enforce any kind of terms of use. Should every triple using a schema.org element assert its provenance? It seems a completely unrealistic requirement. Disclaimer :I'm not a lawyer, far from it ...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2014-07-15 23:51 GMT+02:00 martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>: 
>> On 15 Jul 2014, at 23:21, Lloyd Fassett <lloyd@azteria.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > Melvin, Martin,
>> >
>> > I'm glad this thread started as it seems clear to me that the license for Schema only applies to publishing information and have been meaning to bring it up.  I believe it's related to what Melvin is asking as his use case is also an 'other than publishing' issue.  There seems to be no right to consume or use Schema markup in the license other than to publish information using the markup.
>> >
>> > The key part from the license is
>> >
>> > "These Terms of Service govern your use of the Website, which contains a schema specifying a vocabulary you can use in a web document "
>> >
>> > and then that part is covered by CC-AS3.
>> >
>> > Am I right?  We can only publish but not consume or use the markup in any other way?
>> 
>> I think there are THREE main scenarios:
>> 
>> 1. Use schema.org to mark-up your content. This scenario is well-covered by the existing terms.
>> 
>> 2. Use schema.org as a data structure in other scenarios, like software applications, protocols, etc. In this scenario, it is particularly unclear whether the resulting software is subject to the "share-alike" requirement.
>> It would be nice if the sponsors of schema.org could clarify this in order to foster innovation.
>> 
>> 3. Consume Web content from third party sites that are marked-up using schema.org. In this scenario, you use schema.org AND content from third parties. The sponsors of schema.org cannot grant you any rights on other people's site content.
>> 
>> In scenarios 2 and 3, you may also be violating patents held by the sponsors of schema.org or third parties. In scenario 1, the sponsors of schema.org will grant you a "an option to receive a license under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms without royalty, solely for the purpose of including markup of structured data in a webpage, where the markup is based on and strictly complies with the Schema.". 
>> 
>> Best wishes / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
>> 
>> Martin Hepp
>> 
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> martin hepp
>> e-business & web science research group
>> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>> 
>> e-mail:  martin.hepp@unibw.de
>> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
>> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
>> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>>          http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
>> skype:   mfhepp
>> twitter: mfhepp
>> 
>> Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
>> =================================================================
>> * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Bernard Vatant 
>> Vocabularies & Data Engineering 
>> Tel :  + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59 
>> Skype : bernard.vatant 
>> http://google.com/+BernardVatant 
>> -------------------------------------------------------- 
>> Mondeca                              
>> 35 boulevard de Strasbourg 75010 Paris 
>> www.mondeca.com 
>> Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------- 
> 

Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 12:15:32 UTC