FW: Questions re POE.UC.01

Dear Victor

This was my last posting in the thread about POE.UC.01 – find below three comments prefixed with ???MS indicating that I raised questions there.

Thanks for your response.

 

Best,

Michael

 

From: Michael Steidl (IPTC) [mailto:mdirector@iptc.org] 
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 11:03 AM
To: 'Víctor Rodríguez Doncel' <vrodriguez@fi.upm.es>; public-poe-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Questions re POE.UC.01

 

Dear Victor,

thanks for your response, I’ve added a few MS-prefixed comments.

 

Best,

Michael

 

From: Víctor Rodríguez Doncel [ <mailto:vrodriguez@fi.upm.es> mailto:vrodriguez@fi.upm.es] 
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2016 8:26 PM
To:  <mailto:public-poe-wg@w3.org> public-poe-wg@w3.org
Subject: 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]

MS: I suggest that we list such examples in the requirements as a POE feature can be tested against CLARIN and META-SHARE but not against “common license” – same for linguistic domain.

*         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.  

 

???MS: I suggest to include these details – as this is different to what ODRL and possibly other RELs expect: if a policy/license can be accessed by a URL then the complete syntax is in the response. I understand your second option as “some (explicit) placeholders in the policy template must be virtually replaced by parameters in the URL requesting it, only then the full policy is available.” (Is this the best option or should we recommend that this is done by the server responding to the URL: it takes the parameters, replaces the placeholders of an internal template and sends the ready-to-use and complete policy – and is this something which should be defined by POE or is this a job for implementers of POE.)

 

*         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".

???MS: are that really categories of policies or are that categories of a) the licensees and b) the assets?

 

*         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.

???MS: is this a features which has to be defined by POE as what you describe is how to access a POE policy.

 

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