Re: LOD Data Sets, Licensing, and AWS


2009/6/24 Ian Davis <>:
>> But your URIs conveys your point of view. The important thing here is that
>> their is a route back to your data space; the place from which your point of
>> view originates.
>> If the pathways to the origins of data are obscured we are recreating
>> yesterday's economy (imho), one in which original creators of work as easily
>> dislocated by middlemen. An economy in which incentives for data publishing
>> are minimal for those who have invested time and money in quality data
>> curation and maintenance.
> I'm not talking about obscuring any pathways. I'm talking about using
> existing URIs and adding more information. If I publish the following RDF as
> part of a set of reviews at then how, in your
> scheme, am I supposed to get attribution?
> <> a foaf:weblog ;
> rev:text "Kingsley's blog, often containing pertinent lod postings" .

I think there are also some other circumstances in which the "URIs as
attribution" mechanism is not sufficient:

- Editorial. I may produce a subset of the LOD cloud which includes
data that I consider to be of high quality or is relevant (in some
sense) to a specific area of interest. I might reasonably want
attribution for the effort invested there, although I've not
contributed any additional data (indeed there's likely to be less).
The custom dataset should be attributable and citeable. AIUI, In EU
law I would have some rights to this database ("a database right")
which derives from the collection and editorial input.

- Derived Data. I may carry out some statistical analysis on LOD data,
covering millions of triples from dozens of different sources. The
derived data can be published as linked data, and the original
datasets owners may reasonably expect attribution of my sources, even
though I'm not republishing any of the original triples.



Leigh Dodds
Programme Manager, Talis Platform

Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2009 08:15:10 UTC