Re: Question about schema.org in a triple store?

OK, scenario (just out of curiosity): I create a generalized triple store
as a hosted service. None of my code directly uses schema.org terms but
nothing stops my users (whom I don't about know in advance) from using my
service to store data using schema.org terms. In my code, all terms are
indexed for searching, so once the schema.org terms are pushed in, they can
be searched and pivoted on in a variety of ways (none of which are specific
to schema.org). Am I in violation of the schema.org terms by not providing
attribution to schema.org when my system is clearly agnostic towards the
specific use of schema.org?

- James
On Jul 16, 2014 1:23 AM, "Matthias Tylkowski" <matthias@binarypark.org>
wrote:

>  Hello Everyone,
> as the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
> <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/> License states you can
> do anything with the  Schema classes and properties what you like: put them
> in your triple store, mix them with other ontologies, use them im your
> software, ...
>
> Regards
> Matthias Tylkowski
>
> Technischer Leiter
> Binarypark UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
> Erich-Weinert-Str. 1
> 03046 Cottbus
> Tel +49 (0)355 692931
> Fax +49 (0)355 694171info@binarypark.orghttp://binarypark.org
>
> Am 16.07.2014 09:48, schrieb Marc Twagirumukiza:
>
> Hi there,
> +1  Bernard.
> I would debate this topic of  reusing schema.org predicates and classes
> in other vocabularies in two ways:
> One, purely licence level. There, like my colleague am not a lawyer but I
> think we need to handle this in simple way: schema.org would decline any
> responsibility of any use of the predicates/classes beyond defined EUL. No
> prevent to re-use but this doesn't bind schema.org terms and conditions.
> The second level is at scientific/consistency level: e.g. schema.org
> documentation says: "It is also explicitly not a goal to support automated
> reasoning, medical records coding, or genomic tagging, all of which would
> require substantially more detailed (and hence high barrier-to-entry)
> modeling and markup". Currently schema.org is being largely used in
> clinical model patterns-despite this statement, but again here it's at
>  user's risk.
> Further discussions on this may be required.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> * Marc Twagirumukiza | **Agfa HealthCare*
> Senior Clinical Researcher | HE/Advanced Clinical Applications Research
> T  +32 3444 8188 | M  +32 499 713 300
>
> http://www.agfahealthcare.com
> http://blog.agfahealthcare.com
>  ------------------------------
> Click on link to read important disclaimer:
> http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer
>
>
>
> From:        Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
> <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
> To:        "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org"
> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
> Cc:        Lloyd Fassett <lloyd@azteria.com> <lloyd@azteria.com>, Melvin
> Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, W3C Web
> Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org> <public-vocabs@w3.org>
> Date:        16/07/2014 09:22
> Subject:        Re: Question about schema.org in a triple store?
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Hi all
>
> And what about reusing *schema.org* <http://schema.org/> predicates and
> classes in other vocabularies?
> See *http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/details/vocabulary_schema.html*
> <http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/details/vocabulary_schema.html> for
> various (and growing) use and reuse cases. When the copyright ontology (of
> all vocabularies) at *http://rhizomik.net/ontologies/copyrightonto.owl*
> <http://rhizomik.net/ontologies/copyrightonto.owl> asserts that
> cro:PublicPlace rdfs:subClassOf  schema:Place
> Does it bind by *schema.org* <http://schema.org/> terms and conditions?
> And when I copy this triple here, do I?
>
> There are so many ways a vocabulary class and predicate can be used,
> either in the open Web or in data or application silos, that it seems
> impossible to enforce any kind of terms of use. Should every triple using a
> *schema.org* <http://schema.org/> element assert its provenance? It seems
> a completely unrealistic requirement. Disclaimer :I'm not a lawyer, far
> from it ...
>
>
>
>
> 2014-07-15 23:51 GMT+02:00 *martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org*
> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> <*martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org*
> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>>:
> On 15 Jul 2014, at 23:21, Lloyd Fassett <*lloyd@azteria.com*
> <lloyd@azteria.com>> wrote:
>
> > Melvin, Martin,
> >
> > I'm glad this thread started as it seems clear to me that the license
> for Schema only applies to publishing information and have been meaning to
> bring it up.  I believe it's related to what Melvin is asking as his use
> case is also an 'other than publishing' issue.  There seems to be no right
> to consume or use Schema markup in the license other than to publish
> information using the markup.
> >
> > The key part from the license is
> >
> > "These Terms of Service govern your use of the Website, which contains a
> schema specifying a vocabulary you can use in a web document "
> >
> > and then that part is covered by CC-AS3.
> >
> > Am I right?  We can only publish but not consume or use the markup in
> any other way?
>
> I think there are THREE main scenarios:
>
> 1. Use *schema.org* <http://schema.org/> to mark-up your content. This
> scenario is well-covered by the existing terms.
>
> 2. Use *schema.org* <http://schema.org/> as a data structure in other
> scenarios, like software applications, protocols, etc. In this scenario, it
> is particularly unclear whether the resulting software is subject to the
> "share-alike" requirement.
> It would be nice if the sponsors of *schema.org* <http://schema.org/>
> could clarify this in order to foster innovation.
>
> 3. Consume Web content from third party sites that are marked-up using
> *schema.org* <http://schema.org/>. In this scenario, you use *schema.org*
> <http://schema.org/> AND content from third parties. The sponsors of
> *schema.org* <http://schema.org/> cannot grant you any rights on other
> people's site content.
>
> In scenarios 2 and 3, you may also be violating patents held by the
> sponsors of *schema.org* <http://schema.org/> or third parties. In
> scenario 1, the sponsors of *schema.org* <http://schema.org/> will grant
> you a "an option to receive a license under reasonable and
> non-discriminatory terms without royalty, solely for the purpose of
> including markup of structured data in a webpage, where the markup is based
> on and strictly complies with the Schema.".
>
> Best wishes / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
>
> Martin Hepp
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> martin hepp
> e-business & web science research group
> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>
> e-mail:  *martin.hepp@unibw.de* <martin.hepp@unibw.de>
> phone:   *+49-(0)89-6004-4217* <%2B49-%280%2989-6004-4217>
> fax:     *+49-(0)89-6004-4620* <%2B49-%280%2989-6004-4620>
> www:     *http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/* <http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/>
> (group)
>          *http://www.heppnetz.de/* <http://www.heppnetz.de/> (personal)
> skype:   mfhepp
> twitter: mfhepp
>
> Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
> =================================================================
> * Project Main Page: *http://purl.org/goodrelations/*
> <http://purl.org/goodrelations/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Bernard Vatant*
> Vocabularies & Data Engineering
> Tel :  + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
> Skype : bernard.vatant
> *http://google.com/+BernardVatant* <http://google.com/+BernardVatant>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> *Mondeca*
> 35 boulevard de Strasbourg 75010 Paris
> *www.mondeca.com* <http://www.mondeca.com/>
> Follow us on Twitter : *@mondecanews*
> <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>