- From: Jerven Bolleman <me@jerven.eu>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:06:25 +0200
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Joachim Baran <joachim.baran@gmail.com>, Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@gmail.com>, "M. Scott Marshall" <mscottmarshall@gmail.com>, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, "Gray, Alasdair J G" <A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk>, HCLS IG <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Booleans, in this case, are like answers on a math exam without showing your work. They might be right or they might be wrong, but no one knows how you got there. I think it is critical in the semantic web that you describe what you know (you might still be wrong) as in a world where we try to share identifiers stating what you don't know often interferes with statements made by those who do know. But getting back: to the issue; Warning brain dump following The aim of the license statements is two fold. a) to state there is a license b) to describe what the license is. If the publisher does not know the license (e.g. "unknown") if they use blank nodes they assert there is a license. Which might not be true at all. I think we could split the property: one for licensing organisation and another for license. This allows us to say that there is no license for this data set per se, but that you can contact a certain organization for a different one. It also helps for those cases where there is a free to use license with terms that are ok for academic purposes but unfriendly to most pharma/business. e.g. in software the AGPLv3 applies here. To help those businesses contact a licensing organization so that they can negotiate for a different license. On other option is one license property but model the licenses underneath better. _:kegg a dct:Dataset ; :license [owl:someValueFrom (kegg:licenseForPersonInJapan, kegg:licenseForPersonOutOfJapan, kegg:licenseForOrganisationOutOfJapan,kegg:licenseForOrganisationInJapan,)] :swissprotIn1999 a dct:Dataset ; :license [owl:someValueFrom ([ rdfs:Comment "Academic use only" ], [ a :NegotionedLicense ; :from _:GeneBio ; :to [ a :end_user_organistation ]. ])] We might need to have 3rd property as well to state the copyright applicability. e.g. _:info a dct:Dataset ; :copyrightStatus :publicDomain . or _:info a dct:Dataset ; :copyrightStatus [ owl:onPropery dct:creator . :untilDateOfDeath [ "Some restiction to state 75 years after creators death" ] ]. etc... Regards, Jerven On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote: > What do you have against booleans? :) > > That seems like a sort of "too many notes" comment about Mozart's work, if > you can reach far enough to follow the analogy. > > -Alan > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Joachim Baran <joachim.baran@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> I am sure we can work out the exact predicate later. The issue I raised >> was about not using boolean. >> >> >> On 20 June 2014 12:51, Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Joachim Baran <joachim.baran@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 20 June 2014 12:41, Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Also, makes me wonder why the EBI has not already been contacted and >>>>> the license determined? Is that because we didn't have the resources to do >>>>> so or because different end users might end up being granted different >>>>> licenses? >>>> >>>> That is my point exactly! >>>> >>>> >>>> Even though the licensing information is not available, there is an >>>> indication where to obtain it from (here, in this example, EBI). >>> >>> >>> Actually, my point is to first answer the question I asked. >>> >>> If not only you don't know the license, but you also don't know why you >>> don't know, it is indeed hard to say anything about the license. >>> >>> If all you want to say is who grants the license, you might want to >>> consider something like: >>> >>> ex:myData ex:canBeLicensedForEndUseBy ex:EBI >>> >>> Best, >>> Oliver >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Oliver Ruebenacker >>> Founder at Relomics Consulting >>> Be always grateful, but never satisfied. >> >> > -- Jerven Bolleman me@jerven.eu
Received on Monday, 23 June 2014 10:06:52 UTC