- From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 07:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
- To: valentina presutti <vpresutti@gmail.com>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
FWIW ... this issue is more subtle than first appears. A license (metadata) is often treated as a matter of 'style', contrary to a first principle of XML. Don't let this happen to your Ontology ... you've been warned. e.g. http://www.rustprivacy.org/cc0.pdf --- On Tue, 7/19/11, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: Ontology license info > To: "valentina presutti" <vpresutti@gmail.com> > Cc: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org> > Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2011, 8:42 AM > How about usung dc:license as an > ontology annotation. That's what > we've done, using cc-by or cc0 as the license. > > -Alan > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2011, valentina presutti <vpresutti@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > > > I could not find any suggestion of good practices for > attaching a license to an ontology. > > Of course one can report it on its documentation (for > humans), but I was wondering if there is any diffuse > practice for embedding this info in the ontology as a > property value (for machine readability). > > > > Any suggestion? > > > > Thanks for the help > > Val > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2011 14:35:32 UTC