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

Re: There's No Money in Linked Data

From: ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <metadataportals@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 08:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1370447533.63572.YahooMailNeo@web120005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
To: "paoladimaio10@googlemail.com" <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>, semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>
Defining what constitutes open becomes a conditio sine qua non for being able to practice open science, using open collaboration platforms including those for sharing raw (meta)/(big)/(field) data, publications, reports, periodicals and information and legacy data from archives digitized.

Because linked data, linked open data and semantic web technologies can and should play a key role in all of this I think defining open should be done in a more integrated concerted effort.

I propose we submit proposals to both the W3C, WIPO, ISO and the European Union to set objectives and deadlines for hammering out guidelines for intellectual property on the Internet.

In terms of the nuts and bolts, key industry players, trade organizations, organizations defending the rights of authors, specialized legal advisers, academic institutes and professionals can collectively flesh out i.e. the implications for linked data and linked open data.

A special wiki could be created to aid this collective effort.

Milton Ponson
GSM: +297 747 8280
PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
Project Paradigm: A structured approach to bringing the tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide by creating ICT tools for NGOs worldwide and: providing online access to web sites and repositories of data and information for sustainable development

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

 From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
To: semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org> 
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2013 4:27 AM
Subject: Re: There's No Money in Linked Data


I agree that there is the need for defining open , however

>Pascal, I somewhat disagree with that statement: there is (and should
>be) a clear (boolean) definition what open means: http://opendefinition.org/

 the opendefinition is (or at least was last time I looked at it)

a) not open, and as such systemically flawed
b) not compliant with legal requirements for IP protections (in the berne convention sense)

I would not use, nor encourage anyone to use it as a valid reference,

There remains work to be done  :-)


>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. 

a lot of lawyers are inexperienced and would lose the case in court,

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 ;-)

this would leave a lot of room for lenghthy legal battles, best avoided!!!  in fact
avoid at all costs!! 

>> 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
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 15:52:47 UTC

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