Re: License unknown

     Hello,

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Joachim Baran <joachim.baran@gmail.com>
wrote:

>   I had a read through our note again and think that a boolean property
> would be an odd one out.
>
>   I would consider Jerven's solution (simply omitting the information) or
> Michel's solution (using a label) to be more suitable.
>
>   If we were to use a label, it could be appropriated as 'rdfs:label
> "Please contact EBI for available licenses."'.
>

  Looks more like a piece of advice rather than a label.

     Best,
     Oliver

>
>   With a boolean solution -- especially when it only denotes whether
> license lookup was tried -- it is not clear what information that bears.
> Why would this boolean ever be set to false? Regardless of it's state, what
> does it imply? It provides no further information than omitting the
> explicit licensing statement (Jerven's solution) and it does not provide
> extra labeling (Michel's solution).
>
> Kim
>
>
> On 18 June 2014 11:06, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, mostly. I'm also trying to adhere to the ideal of having the semweb
>> assertions being a monotonically increasing set. At the moment the
>> semantics of the reasoning tools assume monotonicity. For an example of the
>> problem, consider a resource which makes inferences based on assertions
>> other make. Keeping their resource up-to-date is much harder if they have
>> to keep checking if assertions have disappeared, and then run their
>> reasoning process again from the start.
>>
>> -Alan
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:01 PM, M. Scott Marshall <
>> mscottmarshall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ah, got it. I was creating the same problem that you were attempting
>>> to fix: You want to make it impossible to add an inconsistent
>>> assertion in the case that the license is initially unknown but is
>>> determined later by building the safe guard into the property. That
>>> seems reasonable enough.. although we (Alasdair and maybe more?) are
>>> creating a validator, as well as an editor (building on the VOID
>>> editor) which would prevent such inconsistencies anyway. Still, it
>>> solves the problem of being able to require that data publishers
>>> actually *try* to determine the license in order to meet our
>>> specification without going against best (?) 'open world' practices,
>>> where unstated = unknown. It also avoids the problem of strictly
>>> limiting datasets to 1 license - probably too restrictive.
>>>
>>> A small doubt: it's still possible to create an inconsistency when
>>> :tried-to-determine-license "false"^xsd:Boolean but dc:license has a
>>> valid license as value.
>>>
>>> Alasdair, Eric - Is there anything in the proposed solution that
>>> http://www.w3.org/2013/ShEx/Primer cannot catch?
>>>
>>> Jerven - does it handle your objections?
>>>
>>> -Scott
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Alan Ruttenberg
>>> <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > The reason I labeled it tried-to-determine-license is that that way the
>>> > assertion remains true. If the predicate is whether we *have*
>>> determined
>>> > license then the assertion needs to be retracted when we do. When
>>> possible
>>> > we try to make statements that remain true.
>>> >
>>> > When probing for a license, first check dc:license, and if it is
>>> absent,
>>> > check :tried-to-determine-license.
>>> >
>>> > In user interfaces there's no reason to show both. It's perfectly
>>> reasonable
>>> > to use these properties to decide whether to show "License: Unknown"
>>> >
>>> > -Alan
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:46 AM, M. Scott Marshall
>>> > <mscottmarshall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Just a slight tweak to Alan's suggestion (thanks Alan):
>>> >> :determined-license "true"^xsd:Boolean
>>> >>
>>> >> -Scott
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Alan Ruttenberg
>>> >> <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> > I concur. This is clear from the semantics of OWL. Understand the
>>> >> > difference
>>> >> > between integrity constraints and OWL assertions.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > If you want to say that there was an attempt to find a license and
>>> that
>>> >> > it
>>> >> > couldn't be found, say that. You could do so as an annotation on the
>>> >> > axiom,
>>> >> > or as a distinct property e.g.
>>> >> > :tried-to-determine-license "true"^xsd:Boolean
>>> >> >
>>> >> > This can remain true, as a historical fact, even after a license is
>>> >> > found.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > For more about integrity constraints see
>>> >> > http://clarkparsia.com/pellet/icv/
>>> >> >
>>> >> > -Alan
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Monday, June 16, 2014, Jerven Bolleman <me@jerven.eu> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Hi Alasdair,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I think you are closing the world the wrong way. Both in limiting a
>>> >> >> dataset to have one license and secondly by having an "unknown"
>>> string
>>> >> >> to encode that you don't know something.
>>> >> >> Instead of using "unknown" you should use a blank node.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> cc:CC0 owl:sameAs "unknown"
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> is plain wrong and can't be inferred
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> cc:CC0 owl:sameAs _:1
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> is fine and a nice way of allowing dataset from different sources
>>> >> >> descriptions to be combined and give more information.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> If you don't want a blank node, make a local node instead.
>>> >> >> cc:CC0 owl:sameAs <./#license>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I implore you to change your mind on this. Choose semantics over
>>> >> >> special
>>> >> >> values!
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Regards,
>>> >> >> Jerven
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Gray, Alasdair J G
>>> >> >> <A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk>
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> > Hi Jerven,
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > We are trying to ensure that a license is provided for a
>>> dataset, and
>>> >> >> > that
>>> >> >> > only one license is provided. (We are closing the world in
>>> certain
>>> >> >> > areas.)
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Our proposed solution is written up at
>>> >> >> > https://github.com/joejimbo/HCLSDatasetDescriptions/issues/65
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Alasdair
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > On 2 Jun 2014, at 16:47, Jerven Bolleman <me@jerven.eu> wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Hi Alasdair,
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > It is good practice in my opinion to not state unknown facts. If
>>> you
>>> >> >> > want to state there should be a license but you don't know it I
>>> think
>>> >> >> > some owl modelling is called for.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > e.g. roughly like this.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > dusty_data a dct:Dataset .
>>> >> >> > dusty_data rdfs:subClassOf [ a owl:Restriction ;
>>> >> >> >                                            owl:onProperty
>>> dct:license
>>> >> >> > ;
>>> >> >> >                                            owl:minCardinality 1 ]
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > If anyone does something like
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > dusty_data a dct:dataset .
>>> >> >> > dusty_data dct:license bad_example:unknown_license .
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > and then someone figures out it has a license .
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > dusty_data a dct:Dataset .
>>> >> >> > dusty_data dct:license cc:zero .
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > And puts all those triples into one store/ontology then queries
>>> will
>>> >> >> > start to return wrong data.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > SELECT ?datasetWithALicense
>>> >> >> > WHERE {
>>> >> >> > ?datasetWithALicense dct:license ?license .
>>> >> >> > }
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Will give 2 bindings for ?dataset and ?license one of them being
>>> >> >> > wrong
>>> >> >> > now.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > If you ask the same question depending on the better modelling
>>> then
>>> >> >> > you get the correct answer in both cases.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > SELECT ?datasetWIthoutLicense
>>> >> >> > WHERE {
>>> >> >> > ?datasetWIthoutLicense a dct;Dataset .
>>> >> >> > MINUS ( ?datasetWIthoutLicense dct:license ?license )
>>> >> >> > }
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > SELECT ?datasetWIthALicense
>>> >> >> > WHERE {
>>> >> >> > ?datasetWIthALicense a dct;Dataset .
>>> >> >> > ?datasetWIthALicense dct:license ?license .
>>> >> >> > }
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Both give the expected results.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > In general in RDF just state what you know and describe what you
>>> >> >> > don't
>>> >> >> > know.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Regards,
>>> >> >> > Jerven
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Gray, Alasdair J G
>>> >> >> > <A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk>
>>> >> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Hi,
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > I am working to help shape the Healthcare and Life Sciences
>>> community
>>> >> >> > profile for describing datasets, current version available from
>>> [1]
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > One of our goals is that there is a minimal set of properties
>>> that
>>> >> >> > are
>>> >> >> > available for all datasets, and we would like these properties to
>>> >> >> > include
>>> >> >> > the license. However we have the problem that for several legacy
>>> >> >> > datasets
>>> >> >> > the license is simply unknown. Does anyone know of a resource
>>> that
>>> >> >> > can
>>> >> >> > be
>>> >> >> > used to represent that the license is unknown as the value of a
>>> >> >> > dcterms:license predicate?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Thanks
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Alasdair
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > [1] https://github.com/joejimbo/HCLSDatasetDescriptions
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Alasdair J G Gray
>>> >> >> > Lecturer in Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, UK.
>>> >> >> > Email: A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk
>>> >> >> > Web: MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from
>>> >> >> > "www.macs.hw.ac.uk" claiming to be
>>> http://www.alasdairjggray.co.uk
>>> >> >> > ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5711-4872
>>> >> >> > Telephone: +44 131 451 3429
>>> >> >> > Twitter: @gray_alasdair
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > ________________________________
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Sunday Times Scottish University of the Year 2011-2013
>>> >> >> > Top in the UK for student experience
>>> >> >> > Fourth university in the UK and top in Scotland (National Student
>>> >> >> > Survey
>>> >> >> > 2012)
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > We invite research leaders and ambitious early career
>>> researchers to
>>> >> >> > join us
>>> >> >> > in leading and driving research in key inter-disciplinary themes.
>>> >> >> > Please
>>> >> >> > see
>>> >> >> > www.hw.ac.uk/researchleaders for further information and how to
>>> >> >> > apply.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity registered under
>>> charity
>>> >> >> > number
>>> >> >> > SC000278.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > --
>>> >> >> > Jerven Bolleman
>>> >> >> > me@jerven.eu
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Alasdair J G Gray
>>> >> >> > Lecturer in Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, UK.
>>> >> >> > Email: A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk
>>> >> >> > Web: MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from
>>> >> >> > "www.macs.hw.ac.uk" claiming to be
>>> http://www.alasdairjggray.co.uk
>>> >> >> > ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5711-4872
>>> >> >> > Telephone: +44 131 451 3429
>>> >> >> > Twitter: @gray_alasdair
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > ________________________________
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Sunday Times Scottish University of the Year 2011-2013
>>> >> >> > Top in the UK for student experience
>>> >> >> > Fourth university in the UK and top in Scotland (National Student
>>> >> >> > Survey
>>> >> >> > 2012)
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > We invite research leaders and ambitious early career
>>> researchers to
>>> >> >> > join us
>>> >> >> > in leading and driving research in key inter-disciplinary themes.
>>> >> >> > Please
>>> >> >> > see
>>> >> >> > www.hw.ac.uk/researchleaders for further information and how to
>>> >> >> > apply.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity registered under
>>> charity
>>> >> >> > number
>>> >> >> > SC000278.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> --
>>> >> >> Jerven Bolleman
>>> >> >> me@jerven.eu
>>> >> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> M. Scott Marshall, PhD
>>> >> MAASTRO clinic, http://www.maastro.nl/en/1/
>>> >> http://eurecaproject.eu/
>>> >> http://semantic-dicom.org/
>>> >> https://plus.google.com/u/0/114642613065018821852/posts
>>> >> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/m-scott-marshall/5/464/a22
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Oliver Ruebenacker
Founder at Relomics Consulting <http://www.relomics.com>
Be always grateful, but never satisfied.