CC0 on the ontology provides the possibility of direct adoption by Wikidata, which would be better than their typical approach of cloning the ontology into their own namespace. But as a general principle, we should put the minimum barriers to reuse possible. In my opinion CC0 is actually fine, provided we ensure that the URI of every vocabulary elements will de-reference to an artefact that contains attribution information. Simon -----Original Message----- From: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, 16 January, 2020 01:11 To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; 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> Subject: Re: License for DCAT vocabulary? One question related to the use of CC0 for wikidata. I found the following: [[ All data on Wikidata is released under Creative Commons CC0 (public domain). ]] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Data_donation#Wikidata_and_copyright I don't understand why the vocabulary files have to be under CC0, unless we plan to submit those to wikidata. I would expect that for the formats used to submit data to wikidata don't have to be under CC0 themselves, while the data files using those formats have to. Am I missing something? Philippe On 12/16/2019 6:55 PM, Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) wrote: > (Note that I distinguish between the Rec document - which definitely > should have the W3C license - and the RDF representation of the > vocabulary. The RDF is not software, nor is it a traditional document > for which most licenses were constructed. IMO CC0 is best for the > RDF.) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) > Sent: Tuesday, 17 December, 2019 10:52 > To: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>; 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> > Subject: RE: License for DCAT vocabulary? > > This piece I would like to clarify: > >> provided that you include the following on ALL copies of the work >> **or portions thereof** > > Unclear what this means in connection with someone using elements from an RDF vocabulary. > Does there have to be a license statement on every mention? > Clearly that would be silly, but the license could be read that way. > It is concerns like this which have led Wikidata to reject any ontology that has a license more onerous than CC-0. > > While I think that Wikidata are being a bit extreme, I would concede their main concern. > If we want the RDF vocabaulary to be widely used, then the license should be maximally permissive. > (The 'attribution' requirement is met effectively through the URIs > being in a W3 domain, which can be dereferenced to get details of the > license information.) > > Simon > > -----Original Message----- > From: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org> > Sent: Tuesday, 17 December, 2019 07:00 > 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> > Subject: Re: License for DCAT vocabulary? > > Actually, after checking with our legal, it appears that we're > currently infringing the Working Group charter for all of the > publications of DCAT > 2 since the FPWD in 2018. We didn't catch this up at the time (oops). > > [[ > This Working Group will use the W3C Document license for all its deliverables. > ]] > https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/charter > > Now, this wording is also in the proposed charter of the Working Group: > https://www.w3.org/2019/11/proposed-dx-wg-charter-2019.html > > So, I suggest that folks carefully review the charter and propose to change this to: > [[ > This Working Group will use the W3C Software and Document license for all its deliverables. > ]] > > Assuming we do update the new charter, the Director can then approves the REC with the permissive license. Using CC BY 4 for the TTL will be fine. > > Philippe > > On 12/16/2019 2:08 PM, pedro winstley wrote: >> https://github.com/catalogue-of-services-isa/CPSV-AP/issues/38#issuec >> o >> mment-566148135 >> >> >> It would be sensible to coordinate these discussions >> >> CC BY 4.0 makes sense >> >> 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-doc >>>> u >>>> ment >>>> >>>> ;" >>>> >>>> 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.htm >>>>> l 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 Thursday, 16 January 2020 02:39:12 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:28:34 UTC