- From: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 14:16:29 -0500
- To: pedro winstley <pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>
- Cc: Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>, Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran <alejandra.gonzalez.beltran@gmail.com>, Dataset Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
On 12/16/2019 2:08 PM, pedro winstley wrote: > https://github.com/catalogue-of-services-isa/CPSV-AP/issues/38#issuecomment-566148135 > > > It would be sensible to coordinate these discussions I don't track those external discussion so thanks for pointing this out. > CC BY 4.0 makes sense I'll need to get approval from W3C legal for us to use CC BY 4.0. At the minimum, they'll need to evaluate how the W3C license and CC BY 4.0 are compatible. If not, I understand the current rational to use CC BY 4.0 is to align ourselves to other vocabularies. Philippe > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 at 18:10, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On 12/16/2019 12:53 PM, Riccardo Albertoni wrote: >>> Hi Alejandra, >>> >>> At the moment in the DCAT TTL and the other RDF serializations, we have >> the >>> statement >>> >>>> dct:license < >>> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document >>> >>> ;" >>> >>> If I remember well, we inserted this link when validating of DCAT by mean >>> of OOPS http://oops.linkeddata.es/. >>> >>> I do not know if we want to change it or if you think the license should >>> also be mentioned elsewhere. >> >> Use it. It's the same one as the DCAT2 document itself. You cannot be >> more restrictive than this license in any case. If you have reasons to >> be more restrictive, I'll be curious to know why. >> >> Philippe >> >> >>> Cheers, >>> Riccardo >>> >>> On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 at 18:25, Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran < >>> alejandra.gonzalez.beltran@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> We have not assigned a license to the DCAT vocabulary and I think it >> would >>>> be important to set one. >>>> >>>> I was trying to check if W3C has a policy around this, but I found this >>>> thread from the PROV list: >>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/site-comments/2018Dec/0004.html >>>> but it seems that there was no conclusion. >>>> >>>> FYI, many of the OBO foundry ontologies (http://www.obofoundry.org/) >> use >>>> CC-BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which I think >> would >>>> be an appropriate license? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Alejandra >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by >>>> *E.F.A. Project* <http://www.efa-project.org>, and is believed to be >>>> clean. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
Received on Monday, 16 December 2019 19:16:40 UTC