Re: Two blog posts that may be of interest

Hi Steven,

I think we're getting closer.

I agree that we shouldn't recommend specific contracts/policies, for these cases where contracts/policies cannot be avoided (in general I think the group wants to encourage open data, no?).

I also agree that we should recommend the data on these contracts/policies to be machine-readable.
The potential point of divergence is that I think it would be appropriate if we could recommend where to find and re-use the 'building blocks' to create these machine-readable representations. And perhaps we could recommend some ready-made combinations, like CC-BY, (which exists as machine-readbale data, see [1]).

But perhaps we can postpone the discussion until the group has progressed on other issues. As long as we're not fogetting it...

Antoine

[1] the direct link is not easy to get. Tryto go at
http://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/
then in the "distill by URI" tab, in the URI box, put
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
click and go, and locate the following statements in the result:
[
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/> a cc:License;
     cc:permits cc:DerivativeWorks,
         cc:Distribution,
         cc:Reproduction;
     cc:requires cc:Attribution,
         cc:Notice;
]

On 5/30/14 2:45 PM, Steven Adler wrote:
> 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_RELis 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.
>  > >
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 30 May 2014 13:00:53 UTC