- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 09:01:38 -0500
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Cc: Georgi Kobilarov <georgi.kobilarov@gmx.de>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 2009-12-06 at 19:40 +0100, Georgi Kobilarov wrote: > Two methods spring to mind. The first is reification. It's probably not > an excellent solution though - consumers would need to be specially > aware of the fact that you're using reification, and that they should > dereify your data. > > Something like: > > [ a rdf:Statement ; > rdf:subject <http://example.org/resource/Madonna> ; > rdf:predicate <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name> ; > rdf:object "Madonna Veronica Louise Chicone" ; > ex:statementLicence </public-domain-declaration> ] . Just want to point out that OWL 2 provides a documented way of doing this: Axiom Annotations. Same style of encoding, but with a specification that will last and doesn't have the same confusion that rdf reification brings. http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-mapping-to-rdf-20091027/#Translation_of_Axioms_with_Annotations http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Annotations That said, this only addresses the technical point above. I've passed on the query to some other folks at Creative Commons in case they have some clearer thoughts. But one question that came up immediately was whether there was a single license that was compatible with the whole set. The emerging trouble on this, to my mind, points to why CC0 is the way to go for data publishing, whenever you have a choice: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ -Alan
Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 14:02:12 UTC