W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > July 2011

RE: AW: Ontology license info

From: Raul Palma <rpalma@man.poznan.pl>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:56:24 +0200
To: "'Alan Ruttenberg'" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01ab01cc4d15$0163c730$042b5590$@poznan.pl>
Thanks Alan, you made a good point. As mentioned earlier, originally we decided to follow such approach so users would be able to access and search ontologies and related objects based on their metadata (metadata from both ontologies and related object). Of course adding sameAs statements is one possible solution to your concern.  But in any case, I would raise such feedback to the rest of OMV consortium, so we will take it into account for the next version of the core.




From: Alan Ruttenberg [mailto:alanruttenberg@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 27 July, 2011 2:54 PM
To: Raul Palma
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Subject: Re: AW: Ontology license info



On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:15 AM, Raul Palma <rpalma@man.poznan.pl> wrote:

Hi Alan,


The most recent releases of OMV can be found at http://omv.ontoware.org.  If you navigate to the download section of the core (http://sourceforge.net/projects/omv2/files/OMV%20Core%20Ontology/) you will see v2.4.1 is the latest release (http://sourceforge.net/projects/omv2/files/OMV%20Core%20Ontology/OMV_v2.4.1.owl/download ).

Wrt to you second comment, you are right we defined the properties in the OMV namespace but we do not have a cc property. We have a hasLicense objectProperty. The range of this objectProperty is the LicenseModel class. We used this range instead of e.g., any URI, following the original design decision to model classes of relevant concepts related to the ontologies in a similar manner.  



You can still use the URI that the license publishers use themselves, and assert those to be of type LicenseModel. Doing that would give you the most success in uptake, IMO, as otherwise you need to either a) Make sure there are sameAs in place and that people are processing sameAs or b) Convince everyone to use your URI rather than the authoritative ones that the license publishers use. (not gonna happen)


But minting your own URI for licenses that already have URIs is not the 'web way'(tm) ;-)




There are already declared some pre-defined individuals of the LicenseModel class, e.g., CPL, GPL, etc. However, after checking, I found that the CC License individual is missing from the list of pre-defined values, so it has to be declared as with the other ones. For each license model individual you can specify a name, acronym, description and documentation (and the party who specified it). E.g., 




Name: Creative Commons Attribution

Acronym: CC BY

Description:  This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation.

Documentation: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ 






From: Alan Ruttenberg [mailto:alanruttenberg@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, 26 July, 2011 11:42 PM
To: Raul Palma

Cc: public-lod@w3.org

Subject: Re: AW: Ontology license info


Hi Raul,


1) Could you send me a link to the current ontology - the one I found doesn't have the reference to CC.

2) I'm guessing that the cc properties are defined (as with the rest) in the http://omv.ontoware.org/2005/05/ontology namespace. This would mean that there would be an integration problem if someone cited a CC license - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/


What not use the published IRIs?




On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Raul Palma <rpalma@man.poznan.pl> wrote:

Hi all,

To complement what Mari Carmen said, in OMV there is class LicenseModel that it is used to specify the license of a particular Ontology (via the hasLicense objectProperty).

OMV definition:

Name: hasLicense

Type: ObjectProperty

Occurrence Constraint: optional

Category: Availability information

Definition: Underlying license model

Domain: omv:Ontology

Range: omv:LicenseModel

Cardinality: 0:1

OMV version: 0.1

Comments: Reference to a concrete LicenseModel Pre-defined values. 


Individuals of the class LicenseModel refer to well-known license models, such as:

• Academic Free License (AFL)

• Common Public License (CPL)

• Lesser General Public License (LGPL)

• Open Software License (OSL)

• General Public License (GPL)

• Modified BSD License (mBSD)

• IBM Public License (IBM PL)

• Apple Public Source License (APSL)

• INTEL Open Source License (INTEL OSL)

• Mozilla Public License (MPL)

• Creative Commons Licenses (CCL)

– Attribution (by)

– Attribution-NoDerivs (by-nd)

– Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (by-nc-nd)

– Attribution-NonCommercial (by-nc)

– Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike (by-nc-sa)

– Attribution-ShareAlike (by-sa)

The class can be extended to support additional classifications. 

The OMV project is running. The latest release of the core has been stable for some time now.  However, if new requirements are derived from users feedback/requests, a new version of the core may evolve.  More recently, efforts have been in the definition of extensions.






No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3789 - Release Date: 07/26/11



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3790 - Release Date: 07/26/11
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2011 12:20:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:21:14 UTC