- From: Pascal Hitzler <pascal.hitzler@wright.edu>
- Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 12:58:06 -0400
- To: Sören Auer <auer@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- CC: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Great we're discussing this. Concerning the definition given on the website you indicate: "A piece of data or content is open if anyone is free to use, reuse, and redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and/or share-alike." - let me play devil's advocate here and suggest an alternative definition, just to make a point: "A piece of data or content is open if anyone is free to use, reuse, and redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and/or share-alike, or to paying suitable royalties to the data creator or provider." But more seriously - you probably see the point: A phrasing like "A piece of data or content is open if anyone is free to use, reuse, and redistribute it — subject to no restrictions" would be a more serious alternative. As soon as you make restrictions, things get tricky - and this is exactly one of the points in the paper we circulated. Attribution or share-alike can already be showstoppers, and for some context can render LOD/LD *non-reusable* - in which case the term "open" appears to be rather misleading. So it appears that things are a bit more complicated. (And, of course, this does not only apply to data.) Best Regards, Pascal. On 6/1/2013 12:47 PM, Sören Auer wrote: > Am 01.06.2013 16:42, schrieb Pascal Hitzler: >> Concerning the "Open" issue: >> >> I'm guilty of not always being clear about the destinction between LD >> and LOD. In fact I believe many people are not clear about it. We should >> ask why they are not. And in fact our little write-up exposes one >> probably reason: The notion simply is rather unclear. "Linked Open Data >> must have an open licence" is - in the light of the analysis in the >> paper - almost meaningless, as "openness" of licences is not a boolean. >> There are many shades to it, and most of these shades do not allow >> readily for commercialization. > > Pascal, I somewhat disagree with that statement: there is (and should > be) a clear (boolean) definition what open means: http://opendefinition.org/ > > The Open Definition precisely defines the requirements for a license in > order to be called open. Allowing remixing and republishing, > availability of data in bulk and non-discriminatory licensing allowing > commercial reuse are core requirements of the open definition. > > Open Data is not cardinally different from other "open" domains, e.g. > open source software and for open source software there exists also a > clear definition (overseen by OSI), which is meanwhile widely enforced. > > I'm a big fan of both -- Linked Data as a data integration paradigm > within and between organizations AND Linked Open Data as a way to share > data and knowledge openly on the Web. With the Open Definition we have a > clear way to distinguish between the two. > > Best, > > Sören > > PS: A few days I attended a talk by a German lawyer about data licensing > and he said that if you publish your data on the Web without access > control, it is (at least in Germany) not secured by any IPR and everyone > can (without asking the publisher) use the data, republish it and do > whatever with it as he pleases. If this is really true, at least for all > Germans all data published as Linked Data on the Web without any license > would be Open Data too ;-) > >> On 5/23/2013 10:09 AM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: >>> (not sure why this, which I wrote ages ago, is sitting again >>> in a window on my computer. Apologies if it was already sent before!). >>> >>> >>> Short version: Please change LD to LOD throughout. >>> >>> A little while ago, when we had made the 5* linked data mug, >>> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/lod/480759174v0_350x350_Back.jpg >>> I got a valid objection to it from the people doing >>> for example enterprise linked data that their client's >>> data was generally extremely confidential and no way >>> would it be open, and the 5 star principle were really >>> valuable for interoperability, but the clients were scared >>> off by the fact that they could not even get one star without being open. >>> >>> So that led to a big change, and more careful wording >>> and a (then) new mug. >>> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/lod/597992118v2_350x350_Back.jpg >>> >>> The new mug has in black, the Linked Data story, and in green, >>> stamped on >>> "OPEN" to make the "Linked Data" become "Linked Open Data", >>> and also in green "Open Licence" added to the requirements for the >>> first star. >>> So the mug works two ways. >>> Without the green, it is about Linked Data (LD). >>> If you include the green (e.g. wearing rose-coloured spectacles) >>> it becomes a recipe for Linked Open Data (LOD). >>> >>> To have even 1 star, Linked Open Data must have an open licence. >>> other wise it is not Linked Open Data at all. >>> >>> Meanwhile, 5* linked data (like my financial data >>> for my taxes) can be completely private. >>> >>> The ability to discuss the different star levels of >>> Linked Data is important too. >>> >>> This distinction has been really important >>> to a lot of people's understanding and to the >>> businesses in the space. >>> >>> So when your article is ONLY about the openness, >>> about the need for linked Open data to be open, >>> it is a big problem that you use the wrong term! >>> >>> There is lots of money in Enterprise Application Integration >>> which is not what you are doing. >>> >>> I would ask you to update the paper. >>> I strongly suggest you update the PDFs you have in place with >>> a back-link to the original. >>> >>> Please edit the paper and basically put "Linked Open Data" and LOD >>> wherever you are >>> talking about it, not "Linked Data" and LD. >>> >>> Because the points that you make are generally important >>> and interesting and I'd like to be able to point to the paper. >>> >>> I have other comments about the actual content, but >>> this is more important. >>> >>> The title... must be something more appropriate >>> "Commercial use of Linked Open Data stymied by Licence Issues" >>> "LOD re-use plagued by lack of suitable licence" >>> "Viral or missing licenses hamper LOD uptake" >>> ... or something.... >>> >>> Thanking you in advance. >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2013-05 -17, at 22:13, Pascal Hitzler wrote: >>> >>>> We just finished a piece indicating serious legal issues regarding >>>> the commercialization of Linked Data - this may be of general >>>> interest, hence the post. We hope to stimulate discussions on this >>>> issue (hence the provokative title). >>>> >>>> Available from >>>> http://knoesis.wright.edu/faculty/pascal/pub/nomoneylod.pdf >>>> >>>> Abstract. >>>> Linked Data (LD) has been an active research area for more than 6 >>>> years and many aspects about publishing, retrieving, linking, and >>>> cleaning Linked Data have been investigated. There seems to be a >>>> broad and general agreement that in principle LD datasets can be very >>>> useful for solving a wide variety of problems ranging from practical >>>> industrial analytics to highly specific research problems. Having >>>> these notions in mind, we started exploring the use of notable LD >>>> datasets such as DBpedia, Freebase, Geonames and others for a >>>> commercial application. However, it turns out that using these >>>> datasets in realistic settings is not always easy. Surprisingly, in >>>> many cases the underlying issues are not technical but legal barriers >>>> erected by the LD data publishers. In this paper we argue that these >>>> barriers are often not justified, detrimental to both data publishers >>>> and users, and are often built without much consideration of their >>>> consequences. >>>> >>>> Authors: >>>> Prateek Jain, Pascal Hitzler, Krzysztof Janowicz, Chitra Venkatramani >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Prof. Dr. Pascal Hitzler >>>> Kno.e.sis Center, Wright State University, Dayton, OH >>>> pascal@pascal-hitzler.de http://www.knoesis.org/pascal/ >>>> Semantic Web Textbook: http://www.semantic-web-book.org >>>> Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > -- Prof. Dr. Pascal Hitzler Kno.e.sis Center, Wright State University, Dayton, OH pascal@pascal-hitzler.de http://pascal-hitzler.de/ Semantic Web Textbook: http://www.semantic-web-book.org/ Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/
Received on Saturday, 1 June 2013 16:58:29 UTC