RE: Two blog posts that may be of interest

It is not for us to recommend specific legal contracts or policies.  Those 
decisions are up to the publishers.  It is enough for us to recommend that 
the Open Data contracts and policies be machine readable.  Others are 
studying Model Contracts and will make recommendations on simplified 
terms.  However, every publishing authority can choose their own terms and 
conditions.  If those terms and conditions are overly complex and that 
complexity makes it cumbersome to render them in machine code, that is 
perhaps its own incentive for simplification...


Best Regards,

Steve

Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again"



From:
"Makx Dekkers" <mail@makxdekkers.com>
To:
"'Antoine Isaac'" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Date:
05/29/2014 01:10 PM
Subject:
RE: Two blog posts that may be of interest



I was just wondering whether CC REL
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC_REL is a reasonably simple approach
that can be recommended, or at least mentioned as a candidate for best
practice?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 6:51 PM
> To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Two blog posts that may be of interest
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> I've never said (and I believe neither have Leigh) that machine
> readability is useless. What we're questioning is the relevance of
> super-complex frameworks.
> Most observed cases of data re-use cry for simple conditions. If one
> has to fulfill 15 different conditions that are hard and absolutely
> not standardized in order to re-use a dataset, one will probably
> abstain, even if these conditions have been described in a machine-
> readable way.
> 
> Antoine
> 
> On 5/28/14 11:39 PM, Steven Adler wrote:
> > I disagree.  We are a long way from universal license terms and
> machine readability of terms and conditions would provide benefits to
> large and small data consumers alike.
> >