W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2008

Re: Size matters -- How big is the danged thing

From: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 08:06:12 +1000
Message-ID: <a1be7e0e0811221406t6fcafe8agbf6de4d4e9d7dbf4@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-lod@w3.org
2008/11/23 Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>

>
>
> Kingsley,
>
> On 22 Nov 2008, at 17:09, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> LOD warehouses have a clear set of characteristics:
>>
>> 1. Static (due to periodic Extract and Load aspect of RDF production)
>> 2. Presumed to be less questionable by some re. license terms
>>
>> Dynamically generated Linked Data via wrappers also have their
>> characteristics:
>>
>> 1. Dynamic (RDF generated "on the fly")
>> 2. Presume to be questionable by some re. license terms
>>
>> Is the initial dichotomy I espoused still false in reality?
>>
>
> Yes it is still false. There are plenty of LOD datasets that don't fit into
> your classification at all because they have on-the-fly generated RDF and
> have no IP or licensing issues whatsoever.
>
> Static vs. dynamic is about implementation techniques. Paying attention to
> licensing issues is a completely orthogonal issue. I really don't know where
> you get the idea that these two questions are the same. They are not.
>
> Cheers,
> Richard


On the point of licensing...  Why do more data sets not include links to the
relevant copyright statements and/or licenses with cc:license [1] ,
dc:license etc.? The CC RDF schema as far as I remember was the first time I
ever saw RDF with it embedded in HTML comments hoping that someone would see
it and recognise what it meant but I haven't seen it in the Linked Data
world yet.

[1] http://creativecommons.org/ns#

Cheers,

Peter
Received on Saturday, 22 November 2008 22:06:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:20:43 UTC