Hi Stian, [ Really good question, thanks to point this out (again) - Now putting my LOV curator hat on ;) ] > Le 5 août 2015 à 03:11, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> a écrit : > > > Community-wide we should still consider how to address this concern - > is LOV considered the de facto archive of ontologies? In the main page of LOV, it is written the following "LOV objective is to provide easy access methods to the ecosystem of vocabularies, and in particular by making explicit the ways they link to each other and providing metrics on how they are used in the linked data cloud, help to improve their understanding, visibility and usability, and overall quality.” Since ontologies can be considered as a “common good” for our community, there is a need to work on a long-term conservation of vocabularies , which of course include versioning and archiving of the ontologies. > (how can we > mirror LOV? Are there licensing issues?) LOV is graciously hosted on the servers at OKFN and the LOV dataset is licensed under Creative Commons CC-BY-3.0 [1]. Note that it’s not just the technical aspect which should be considered here, but also the curation aspect done “manually” by 3 volunteers, who are responsible to interact with the vocabulary editors when necessary. My 2 cents… Ghislain [1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/> --------------------------------------- Ghislain A. Atemezing, Ph.D ghislain.atemezing@gmail.com Google+: http://google.com/+GhislainATEMEZING Twitter: @gatemezing About Me: https://about.me/ghislain.atemezing <https://about.me/ghislain.atemezing>
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2015 07:59:51 UTC