Re: License for DCAT vocabulary?

On 1/17/2020 3:47 AM, andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu wrote:
> +1 from me.
> 
> 
> BTW, I wonder whether CC0 could be retroactively applied to the DCAT2 ontology.

I believe so,

Philippe

> 
> Andrea
> 
> 
> ----
> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
> Scientific Project Officer
> European Commission DG JRC
> Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
> Unit B6 - Digital Economy
> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
> 
> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
> 
> ----
> The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
> not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
> position of the European Commission.
> 
> ________________________________
> From: pedro winstley <pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>
> Sent: 16 January 2020 23:44:12
> To: Philippe Le Hégaret
> Cc: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton); Riccardo Albertoni; Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran; Dataset Exchange Working Group
> Subject: Re: License for DCAT vocabulary?
> 
> It sounds good to me Philippe
> We're looking to make some moves towards V3 by then and the draft of the V3 ontology could be published in the early PWDs as CC0.
> 
> I'm think that we don't want any delay with publishing V2
> 
> Do other colleagues concur?
> 
> Peter
> 
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020, 20:30 Philippe Le Hégaret, <plh@w3.org<mailto:plh@w3.org>> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/15/2020 9:38 PM, Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> So, after exchanging emails with legal, here is the catch: the Director
> isn't allowed to grant an exception to the Software and Document license
> without advice by the AC. That's embedded in the W3C Membership
> agreement signed by between a W3C Member and the 4 W3C hosts
> organization. Now, in the recent years, we got support from the AC to
> use CC-BY, thus we could switch to CC-BY 4.0 right away for the
> vocabulary file. To be able to go to CC0 will require a loop with the
> AC. The timing is rather unfortunate since we just did a loop with a
> proposed charter to the AC and we probably don't want to delay DCAT-2
> for 2 months. So I guess I would propose to switch to CC-BY 4 for now
> and wait until June 2020 to do a new rechartering again.
> 
> Now, the reason why June is interesting is because, if things are on
> track, we'll have to recharter to use Process 2020 (due to the
> significant change in the patent policy). At that time, we could add CC0
> for the vocabulary file directly in the charter to do yet another AC
> review. How does that sound?
> 
> Philippe
> 
>> Simon
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto:pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>>
>> Cc: Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it<mailto:albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>>; Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran <alejandra.gonzalez.beltran@gmail.com<mailto:alejandra.gonzalez.beltran@gmail.com>>; Dataset Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org<mailto: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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Data_donation*Wikidata_and_copyright__;Iw!!DOxrgLBm!RGtnn72zWhyPo94OxPgSo3twWjhRWj0UYKELXCOqVUU97ZvDdvokr7JbJ70pjdVLkC04rXY$>
>>
>> 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<mailto:plh@w3.org>>; pedro winstley
>>> <pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com<mailto:pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>>
>>> Cc: Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it<mailto:albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>>; Alejandra
>>> Gonzalez-Beltran <alejandra.gonzalez.beltran@gmail.com<mailto:alejandra.gonzalez.beltran@gmail.com>>; Dataset
>>> Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto:plh@w3.org>>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 17 December, 2019 07:00
>>> To: pedro winstley <pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com<mailto:pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>>
>>> Cc: Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it<mailto:albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>>; Alejandra
>>> Gonzalez-Beltran <alejandra.gonzalez.beltran@gmail.com<mailto:alejandra.gonzalez.beltran@gmail.com>>; Dataset
>>> Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org<mailto: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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/charter__;!!DOxrgLBm!RGtnn72zWhyPo94OxPgSo3twWjhRWj0UYKELXCOqVUU97ZvDdvokr7JbJ70pjdVLjzBPDJ0$>
>>>
>>> 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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.w3.org/2019/11/proposed-dx-wg-charter-2019.html__;!!DOxrgLBm!RGtnn72zWhyPo94OxPgSo3twWjhRWj0UYKELXCOqVUU97ZvDdvokr7JbJ70pjdVLq33p9EA$>
>>>
>>> So, I suggest that folks carefully review the charter and propose to change this to:
>>> [[
>>> This Working Group will use the W3C Software and Document license for all its deliverables.
>>> ]]
>>>
>>> Assuming we do update the new charter, the Director can then approves the REC with the permissive license. Using CC BY 4 for the TTL will be fine.
>>>
>>> Philippe
>>>
>>> On 12/16/2019 2:08 PM, pedro winstley wrote:
>>>> https://github.com/catalogue-of-services-isa/CPSV-AP/issues/38#issuec<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/catalogue-of-services-isa/CPSV-AP/issues/38*issuec__;Iw!!DOxrgLBm!RGtnn72zWhyPo94OxPgSo3twWjhRWj0UYKELXCOqVUU97ZvDdvokr7JbJ70pjdVLMqkb2qA$>
>>>> 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<mailto: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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-doc__;!!DOxrgLBm!RGtnn72zWhyPo94OxPgSo3twWjhRWj0UYKELXCOqVUU97ZvDdvokr7JbJ70pjdVLdFEGSAk$>
>>>>>> u
>>>>>> ment
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ;"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I remember well, we inserted this link when validating of DCAT
>>>>>> by mean of OOPS http://oops.linkeddata.es/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://oops.linkeddata.es/__;!!DOxrgLBm!RGtnn72zWhyPo94OxPgSo3twWjhRWj0UYKELXCOqVUU97ZvDdvokr7JbJ70pjdVLRaIxDg4$>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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<mailto: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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/site-comments/2018Dec/0004.htm__;!!DOxrgLBm!RGtnn72zWhyPo94OxPgSo3twWjhRWj0UYKELXCOqVUU97ZvDdvokr7JbJ70pjdVLfpyR_qQ$>
>>>>>>> l but it seems that there was no conclusion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FYI, many of the OBO foundry ontologies
>>>>>>> (http://www.obofoundry.org/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.obofoundry.org/__;!!DOxrgLBm!RGtnn72zWhyPo94OxPgSo3twWjhRWj0UYKELXCOqVUU97ZvDdvokr7JbJ70pjdVLCyQxDNo$>)
>>>>> use
>>>>>>> CC-BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/__;!!DOxrgLBm!RGtnn72zWhyPo94OxPgSo3twWjhRWj0UYKELXCOqVUU97ZvDdvokr7JbJ70pjdVL97lIhh0$>), which I
>>>>>>> think
>>>>> would
>>>>>>> be an appropriate license?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alejandra
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
>>>>>>> *E.F.A. Project* <http://www.efa-project.org<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.efa-project.org__;!!DOxrgLBm!RGtnn72zWhyPo94OxPgSo3twWjhRWj0UYKELXCOqVUU97ZvDdvokr7JbJ70pjdVLHjZM-ts$>>, and is believed to
>>>>>>> be clean.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

Received on Friday, 17 January 2020 13:02:04 UTC