- From: Joachim Baran <joachim.baran@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:52:32 -0700
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jerven Bolleman <me@jerven.eu>, 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>
- Message-ID: <CAObSwHVopGTdruV33DYCbBv7cLkSj_FTU=aOsk832-_JL1fNfQ@mail.gmail.com>
We have come to a conclusion during the call, where we decided to use a free-text comment approach. See: https://github.com/joejimbo/HCLSDatasetDescriptions/issues/65#issuecomment-46861614 Kim On 23 June 2014 08:45, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Jerven Bolleman <me@jerven.eu> wrote: > >> Again, I think we should encourage more specificity than the boolean >> property flag. >> >> One academic makes the following statements >> >> _:sillyAcademicsDataset a dct:Dataset ; >> prov:wasDerivedFrom realworld:commercialDataset . >> realworld:commercialDataset a dct:Dataset ; >> :tried-to-determine-license true . >> >> Second Academic makes these statements >> _:lazyAcademicsDataset a dct:Dataset ; >> prov:wasDerivedFrom realworld:commercialDataset . >> realworld:commercialDataset a dct:Dataset ; >> :tried-to-determine-license true . >> >> Combine this knowledge >> realworld:commercialDataset a dct:Dataset ; >> :tried-to-determine-license true ; >> :tried-to-determine-license false . >> > > This is a better criticism. While this can happen, I'd suggest that the > false assertion could not be asserted correctly, for the practical reason > that a single researcher can not know if there never has been a case of > trying to determine license. However I would add a note of documentation > (rdfs:comment is perfect for this) to this effect. > Once we are dealing with asserting incorrect facts, anything goes. (I > didn't say the property value was whether "*" tried to determine it. > However if I tried to determine it then I know that a case of trying has > happened. There's a reason that it isn't good practice to use unqualified > pronouns on the web) > > >> Not very helpful. >> >> Take the rdfs:comment approach >> _:sillyAcademicsDataset a dct:Dataset ; >> prov:wasDerivedFrom realworld:commercialDataset . >> realworld:commercialDataset a dct:Dataset ; >> dct:license [rdfs:comment "I tried to look at XXX, >> and believe its fair use because of YYYY" ] >> >> _:lazyAcademicsDataset a dct:Dataset ; >> prov:wasDerivedFrom realworld:commercialDataset . >> realworld:commercialDataset a dct:Dataset ; >> dct:license [rdfs:comment "Lazy academic did not >> care to look for the license"] >> >> Combine this knowlege >> realworld:commercialDataset a dct:Dataset ; >> dct:license [rdfs:comment "I tried to look at XXX, >> and believe its fair use because of YYYY" ], >> [rdfs:comment "Lazy academic did >> not care to look for the license"] . >> >> Its still use full. >> >> Then try this >> _:sillyAcademicsDataset a dct:Dataset ; >> prov:wasDerivedFrom realworld:commercialDataset . >> realworld:commercialDataset a dct:Dataset ; >> dct:license [a :UseAtOwnLegalRisk . >> rdfs:comment "I tried to look at >> XXX, and believe its fair use because of YYYY" ] >> >> Even more rich information an end user can actually use. >> > > A user *reading* the comment can use it. A machine (an essential > component, ideally, of our target audience) will have a harder time. > > >> One has to think about more than one re-publisher of a dataset, as >> that does happen in our field (see drugbank as a real life example). >> > > Yes. And republishers need to think more carefully about the consequences > of republishing copyrightable information without knowing the license terms. > > -Alan > > >> >> >> Regards, >> Jerven >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Alan Ruttenberg >> <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Joachim Baran < >> joachim.baran@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On 23 June 2014 06:37, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> In the case that the license is not asserted it distinguishes the case >> >>> where the publisher has made an affirmative effort to determine what >> the >> >>> license is, or not. >> >> >> >> I cannot fathom how this could be inferred from the truth value of a >> >> bit. >> >> >> > >> > By documenting the property so as to make that explicit. How else do we >> > understand any property value? >> > >> > -Alan >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Jerven Bolleman >> me@jerven.eu >> > >
Received on Monday, 23 June 2014 15:52:59 UTC