Re: Questions re POE.UC.01

Dear Michael, all,

Thanks for your comments. Please find my answer below.

El 21/04/2016 20:56, Michael Steidl (IPTC) escribió:
>
> Hi Victor,
>
> some questions regarding requirements of your POE.UC.01 - 
> https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Use_Cases
>
> ·Re r(equirement) 5: what are the special and specific features of a 
> **common** license and the **linguistic** domain
>
By "linguistic domain" we were meaning "language resources" (data or 
tools), e.g., dictionaries, terminological term banks, translation 
memories, corpora
By "common license", we were meaning those commonly used for those 
resources. For example, in CLARIN [1] or in META-SHARE [2]
>
> ·Re r 7: “… from an …” -> “… from an …” ?
>
> ·Re r 7: what means creating a new resource from an existing resource 
> … maybe: deriving? (see r 13)
>
Yes, deriving. In this case, the publication of derivative works must be 
reported (unsure about the meaning of "redeposit", we can ask).
>
> ·Re r 10: “complete manner“ – does that mean the policy includes 
> exactly how to attribute?
>
Yes, with specific indications (I have usually seen the specification of 
the email/name to be attributed. But also (rare) the location/size of a 
logo)
>
> ·Re r 14: “within” = the policy defines explicitly the fee, “outside” 
> =  the policy defines that the fee has to be agreed outside the 
> policy’s scope
>
The actual price is not specified in the policy, but in an external 
resource (for example accessible via http request)
>
> ·Re r 16: … to use policy templates to create a final, “real” policy?
>
I see two options.
1) The policy template is not a policy until the "gaps" are filled --> 
simple, but this requires a non-expert to modify a possibly complex 
expression
2) Two metadata records describe a resource: 
"licenseTemplate=TEMPLATE24", "price=1 EUR". This is the preferred 
option by non-experts, but anomalous for ODRL.
>
> ·Re r 17: please examples of categories – policy category is not an 
> unambiguous term
>
In different dimensions. For example, in [1], one dimension licenses is 
"public", "academic", and "with restrections". Other dimension can be 
"for data", "for software", "for general IP works".
>
> ·Re r 18: what should have this ability of referencing? “this” policy, 
> or something else? What is the role of “this policy” in the latter case?
>
Think of a "ODBC Public Domain Dedication and License 1.0". I may want 
to reference its machine readable version, but it has no standard URI 
(nor standard codification). The URIs at [3] have been used, but another 
equally stable domain might be proposed --for example as references to a 
non-normative part of the POE spec.
>
> Thanks for clarifications,
>
You are welcome!
Víctor
>
[1] https://www.clarin.eu/content/license-categories
[2] http://www.meta-net.eu/meta-share/licenses
[3] http://rdflicense.linkeddata.es/
>
> Michael
>
> IPTC
>


-- 
Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel
D3205 - Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
Facultad de Informática
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

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