W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > June 2013

Re: There's No Money in Linked Data

From: Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 18:21:57 +0000
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Cc: Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87a9n9y9mi.fsf@violet.siamics.net>
>>>>> Pascal Hitzler <pascal.hitzler@wright.edu> writes:

[…]

 > 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,

	I hope they won't.  Or at least the attribution alone, for I
	believe that under certain jurisdictions, it may be impossible
	to legally waive the requirement to attribute at all.

	(Sure, it's possible for the author to make a promise that it
	won't, under any circumstances, sue for the infringement of his
	right to be attributed, and to live up to that promise, but
	what'd the user do should, say, his or her inheritors change
	their minds?)

 > and for some context can render LOD/LD *non-reusable* — in which case
 > the term “open” appears to be rather misleading.

	Perhaps.  But overall, I'd like to note the ever-present
	necessity to consider this in a wider social context.  Suppose,
	for instance, that under the whatever definition of “open”
	chosen by the community, something falling under such a
	definition would somehow be more of an sure “loss” to the
	community?

	FWIW, I wouldn't readily consider the possibility of someone
	“taking over” the data gathered by the community (as in:
	restricting community's own access to the data inferred from the
	open datasets) to be a clear win scenario.  Thus, I'd consider
	Share-Alike to be a reasonable requirement, unless there're some
	obvious arguments against it in a particular case.

[…]

-- 
FSF associate member #7257
Received on Saturday, 1 June 2013 18:22:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:33 UTC