Re: [poe] Dc:license vocabulary hijacking?

In such a case, I change my opinion.
Whereas I fiercely defend my standpoint with respect to personal 
statements (I want to be able to speak about DublinCore, Trump or God), 
I understand our document is produced by W3C and I dont want the 
organisation to be qualified as impolite. A softer approach would be 
perhaps using SKOS.

By the way, you may like this tool:


El 20/12/2017 a las 13:31, Ivan Herman escribió:
> @vroddon <>: the issue is not really 
> technical but, instead, procedural and social. We do have a term 
> (|dct:license|) that is defined and maintained by a reputable 
> organization (DCMI). Changing/modifying the semantics of a term 
> defined by DMCI should not be done without a synchronization with 
> those who are responsible for it.
> We /could/ get into contact with the DCMI to decide with them whether 
> it is o.k. for each and every |dct:license| relationship to imply an 
> |odrl:hasPolicy|. If they agree, then we would be fine doing this. But 
> just as we would not be happy if a third party decided to 
> change/extend the semantics of an ODRL term without our approval, due 
> diligence would require for us to contact DCMI.
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub 
> <>, or 
> mute the thread 
> <>.

Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel
D3205 - Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
ETS de Ingenieros Informáticos
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Campus de Montegancedo s/n
Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, Spain
Tel. (+34) 91336 3672
Skype: vroddon3

GitHub Notification of comment by vroddon
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2017 12:49:44 UTC