Re: AGENDA: LD4LT call Thursday 17th July 15.00 CEST, 13.00 UTC

Penny, all,

Thanks for the link.

I recall we are offering at a RDF version 
of some of the most common licenses, but no "plain English" version.
Creative Commons and ODC licenses do actually have such a "plain 
English" version which is good enough. Yet, for other licenses, having 
this might be useful.

We can discuss these and other issues in our call if you like


El 17/07/2014 13:44, Penny Labropoulou escribió:
> A site that you might find interesting for licences:
> includes a list of licences formally represented - I'm not sure of the
> technical details, but there's a JSON button for each licence. Please note
> that not all of them are correctly represented (I remember some mistakes at
> CC licences, e.g.
> erivs-%28cc-nc-nd%29 should be CC-BY-NC-ND) and there are some
> "interpretations" of the rules that legal experts do not like (e.g.
> "attribution" is not exactly the same as "must include copyright"). Still, I
> think you might find it useful,
> Penny
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Penny Labropoulou []
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 11:52 AM
> To: 'Felix Sasaki'; 'Dave Lewis'
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: AGENDA: LD4LT call Thursday 17th July 15.00 CEST, 13.00 UTC
> Hi all.
> I' m sorry but I' m not sure I' ll be able to join you at today's meeting.
> So, I would like to send some input for ACTION 5 - the discussion on the
> licensing module, based on the META-SHARE experience and current ongoing
> discussions on its improvement. Sorry, it will only be some bullets and I'll
> be able to add more comments next week.
> First of all, I agree with Victor's proposal and his recommendations
> regarding the licensing module. (One minor point to clarify things: we have
> used the spelling "licence" instead of the "license" because we decided to
> stick to the European spelling rules for the whole model, but this is minor;
> license can just as easily be used).
> Victor's recommendations regard mainly the licence component per se and I
> agree they can be adopted as they are ; comments for this
> .	it is important to identify what should indeed remain in the
> licenceInfo (or whatever its name is) describing the licence itself and only
> the licence
> o	add URIs, as proposed
> o	keep licence name (identified by human users)
> o	add version information (e.g. CC 4.0, etc.)
> o	the use of the ODRL or any such other language for representing
> conditions/restrictions/permissions of use: GREAT! but maybe keep some
> descriptive element for human consumption also
> o	for some licences (e.g. ELDA licences), the elements membershipInfo
> (not translated by UPF) are used; discuss which licences will be RDFized and
> the need of extra elements for this
> At META-SHARE, there's also a set of elements that link a specific resource
> to a specific licence (what in META-SHARE was inside the distributionInfo);
> things to consider for this:
> o	a resource may be linked to more than one licences (e.g. a
> commercial and a non-commercial one)
> o	dual licensing of a resource, i.e. a resource accessed via an
> interface, is available with two licences, one for the contents and one for
> the interface
> o	irrespective of the licence, some elements are needed for legal
> reasons, e.g. licensor, IPR holder, distribution rights holder, attribution
> text/url; discuss if these should be at a separate module
> o	distribution/access medium: this has been added to the
> distributionInfo module because certain resources had a different way of
> access depending on the licence; this seems to be abandoned; especially for
> open resources, most of them are downloadable or can be accessed via a web
> interface; discuss if this is indeed to be kept in this module Best, Penny
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Felix Sasaki []
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 11:18 AM
> To: Dave Lewis
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: AGENDA: LD4LT call Thursday 17th July 15.00 CEST, 13.00 UTC
> Hi Dave and all,
> Am 16.07.2014 um 18:19 schrieb Dave Lewis <>:
>> Hi all,
>> Just a reminder that our regular call is tomorrow, Thursday 17th July,
> 15.00 CEST
> 0717T13&p1=1440&ah=1
>> dial-in details:
>> and on
>> #ld4lt
>> please join me if you are able.
>> Agenda below, let me know if you have any other items to discuss:
>> Topic: Action item review
>> -----------------------------------
>> ACTION-5: Victor - proposal for a license module
>> Victor provided draft. Will cover in agenda item below.
>> ACTION-7: Felix - Check with w3c groups if there are other approches
>> to
> represent languages as uris
> This is done, see
> though we probably should discuss how or even if to move forward with the
> topic.
> - Felix
>> ACTION-8: Dave -Look into isa work related to dcat profiles and report
> back
>> See mail - to be discussed in MS CORE vocab:
>> ACTION-9: Jorge - Implement changes in metashare spreadsheet
>> see agenda item below
>> ACTION-10: Jorge - Identify some external vocabularies to use in ms
>> Topic: Annoucements
>> ------------------------------
>> Felix or Sebastian: MLODE call and LD4LT workshop:
>> Dave:
>> FEISGILTT one day workshop at locworld Vancouver
>> Topic: META-SHARE vocabulary CORE
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> Review updates to vocabulary at:
> NTlDYpQ/edit#gid=0
>> (note: Jorge has added column headed 'NEW' and some existing MS vocab
> columns are hidden and can be accessed via little triangle in header
> Suggested updates in new columns being tracked in blue)
>> Issues:
>> - use of DCAT
>> - separation of certain parts onto separate modules
>> - modelling character encoding
>> - modelling language codes
>> Topic: META-SHARE vocabulary LICENSE
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> Discussion of Victor's contribution:
>> Topic: Next meeting
>> ---------------------------
>> Topic: AoB
>> ---------------

Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 12:09:36 UTC