- From: <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:35:41 +0200
- To: Lloyd Fassett <lloyd@azteria.com>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
I think a good pragmatic solution to the discussion would be to change the license for schema.org from CC BY-SA to CC BY (without share-alike). By this, even usages where the result could be considered "derived works" would not have to distribute the result under CC BY-SA again. The exact border between just referencing terms from an ontology and "incorporating" it into derived works is likely an open legal question, because using structures from an ontology to represent data is more than using a single code from a copyrighted taxonomy to describe yourself. In addition to that and to put things forwards, we should 1. collect requirements and use-cases and 2. ask Google/Bing/Yahoo/Yandex to have their legal department to look whether those are covered by the existing mechanism. I think it is in the interest of the big search engines to foster innovation in this area, and clarifying the legal grounds for doing so will be very important. Best wishes / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Martin Hepp On 16 Jul 2014, at 19:50, Lloyd Fassett <lloyd@azteria.com> wrote: > re Danbri: > > The page-centric language on the site stems from its original use cases; > it would be reasonable to expect us to work on improving that at some > point, but I think the Creative Commons license it cites is clear > enough - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0 > > +1 > > My confusion isn't what CC license says. It's that the license seems to only apply to page-centric usage. > > Thanks for chiming in from vacation. > > Lloyd Fassett > Azteria Inc. > Bend, OR > (541) 848-2440 (PST) > > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: > On 7/16/14 11:00 AM, James M Snell wrote: >> 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 >> > > As you said "all terms are indexed for searching" , which means you aren't agnostic. You put this creative work (produced by others) to use in your specific app(s). It provided value etc.. > > All your app has to do is make an acknowledgement of its use (re., indexing with search in mind) of schema.org terms, assuming your app doesn't benefit from use of URIs as opposed to local identifiers etc.. > > Kingsley >> On Jul 16, 2014 1:23 AM, "Matthias Tylkowski" <matthias@binarypark.org> wrote: >> Hello Everyone, >> as the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 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 694171 >> info@binarypark.org >> http://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> >>> To: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> >>> Cc: Lloyd Fassett <lloyd@azteria.com>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <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 predicates and classes in other vocabularies? >>> See 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 asserts that cro:PublicPlace rdfs:subClassOf schema:Place >>> Does it bind by 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 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>: >>> On 15 Jul 2014, at 23:21, Lloyd Fassett <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 to mark-up your content. This scenario is well-covered by the existing terms. >>> >>> 2. Use 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 could clarify this in order to foster innovation. >>> >>> 3. Consume Web content from third party sites that are marked-up using schema.org. In this scenario, you use schema.org AND content from third parties. The sponsors of 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 or third parties. In scenario 1, the sponsors of 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 >>> phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 >>> fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 >>> www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) >>> 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/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Bernard Vatant >>> Vocabularies & Data Engineering >>> Tel : + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59 >>> Skype : bernard.vatant >>> http://google.com/+BernardVatant >>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>> Mondeca >>> 35 boulevard de Strasbourg 75010 Paris >>> www.mondeca.com >>> Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > -- > Regards, > > Kingsley Idehen > Founder & CEO > OpenLink Software > Company Web: > http://www.openlinksw.com > > Personal Weblog 1: > http://kidehen.blogspot.com > > Personal Weblog 2: > http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen > > Twitter Profile: > https://twitter.com/kidehen > > Google+ Profile: > https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about > > LinkedIn Profile: > http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen > > Personal WebID: > http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this >
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 06:36:15 UTC