W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > September 2020

Re: Blank nodes must DIE! [ was Re: Blank nodes semantics - existential variables?]

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 11:43:31 +0200
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-ID: <e9bb40d2-2d14-65b1-a410-98c87d152ec9@emse.fr>
Indeed, Dave. The datatype discussed in this thread is the one 
colloquially identified as cdt:ucum, which stands for:


This URI dereferences to a documentation which is currently in 
disagreement with the Copyright Notice and License of UCUM since it does 
not include the said notice.

The documentation is a draft, subject to evolve, and is not currently 
officially endorsed by any organisation, although we know people other 
than us who are using it in their projects.

The URI contains the term "custom_datatype" because it is one of several 
custom datatypes that we are defining for various purposes. It was not 
initially planned to separate cdt:ucum from our other custom datatypes, 
but if their is a community willing to push this work towards 
standardisation, we should give a second thought to the namespace of the 

We should also, obviously, update the documentation to make the 
Copyright Notice appear explicitly.

However, I doubt that the copyright notice can legally enforce anyone to 
include the notice if they are merely using the codes in data about 
measurements or physical quantities. So, as far as I'm concerned, I will 
continue to use these codes and the cdt:ucum datatype whenever relevant 
in my projects or publications, as well as encourage others to do so.


Le 03/09/2020 à 10:14, Dave Reynolds a écrit :
> On 03/09/2020 09:04, Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) wrote:
>>   * That just allows exchange of any /measurements/
>> This is the RDF application that we were discussing in this thread, I 
>> think – where the UCUM code only appears in the context of a 
>> measurement instance (i.e. a quantity) either embedded in the literal 
>> else appearing in a data-type.
> If appearing as a data-type that would be a URI surely? And, if a URI, 
> given this is on the semantic-web list, wouldn't that URI resolve to 
> something? That something would be explicitly or implicitly 
> communicating partial information from UCUM. It's whoever puts up those 
> data type URIs that needs to find a way through the "prickly" license.
> Dave
>> I can see your point that QUDT may be violating the strict 
>> interpretation, so will attempt to clear that up separately. But I 
>> still content that the use-case canvassed in this thread is OK.
>> *From:*Dave Reynolds <dave.reynolds@epimorphics.com>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, 3 September, 2020 17:49
>> *To:* semantic-web@w3.org
>> *Subject:* Re: Blank nodes must DIE! [ was Re: Blank nodes semantics - 
>> existential variables?]
>> On 03/09/2020 03:43, Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) wrote:
>>     Dan Brickley wrote (a while back):
>>     ØOn Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 19:50, Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us
>>     <mailto:phayes@ihmc.us?Subject=Re%3A%20Blank%20nodes%20must%20DIE!%20%5B%20was%20Re%3A%20Blank%20nodes%20semantics%20-%20%20existential%20variables%3F%5D&In-Reply-To=%3CCAFfrAFqgq7JxxwzEhYoMV70haRznXkjLBiOwhQUjwGJ0S0vsug%40mail.gmail.com%3E&References=%3CCAFfrAFqgq7JxxwzEhYoMV70haRznXkjLBiOwhQUjwGJ0S0vsug%40mail.gmail.com%3E>>
>>     wrote:
>>     Ø
>>     Ø> Excellent. I have thought for some time that this way of using
>>     datatyping
>>     Ø> would be the right way to go. Congratulations on having
>>     actually done it :-)
>>     Ø>
>>     Ø
>>     ØThis is really interesting. Every couple of years I stumble
>>     across UCUM (
>>     Øhttp://unitsofmeasure.org/trac ->
>>     Øhttp://unitsofmeasure.org/trac/wiki/TermsOfUse) before being
>>     scared away by
>>     Øthe prickly terms of use document. It is not a document that seems to
>>     Øwelcome re-use.
>>     Ø
>>     ØDan
>>     I’ve attempted to clarify this with Gunther Schadow, but can’t get
>>     a response.
>>     Meanwhile, I was pointed to this service which does quantity
>>     conversions based on UCUM codes:
>>       * Form UI - https://ucum.nlm.nih.gov/ucum-lhc/demo.html
>>       * API - https://ucum.nlm.nih.gov/ucum-service.html
>>     FWIW QUDT now has basic UCUM support as well -
>>     https://github.com/qudt/qudt-public-repo/blob/master/schema/SCHEMA_QUDT-v2.1.ttl#L2924
>>     I peered into the UCUM Terms of Use document and I believe this is
>>     the relevant clause:
>>       * 5) UCUM codes and other information from the UCUM table may be
>>         used in electronic messages communicating measurements without
>>         the need to include this Copyright Notice and License or a
>>         reference thereto in the message (and without the need to
>>         include all fields required by Section 7 hereof).
>>     So I think we are in the clear to use UCUM codes in the manner
>>     that has been discussed in this conversation.
>> I disagree.
>> That just allows exchange of any /measurements/, it doesn't allow use 
>> of UCUM codes within metadata. Any service which, for example, 
>> provided metadata on units of measures and included UCUM codes as part 
>> of that metadata would be in violation. Assuming it including non UCUM 
>> metadata then it would violate the "not add any new contents" element 
>> of clause 2. If you kept the UCUM codes separate and included /all/ 
>> the fields required then you might be able to claim that as the 
>> "master term dictionary" use allowed under clause 7 but then would 
>> have to show how you were satisfying the notice requirement which has 
>> no such corresponding allowance for "electronic messages".
>> I am not a lawyer and so what I say here carries no value. Perhaps the 
>> QUDT folks, if they are now using UCUM, have a documented legal 
>> opinion that suggests more flexible reuse is possible.
>> Dave
>>     *Simon J D Cox *
>>     Research Scientist - Environmental Informatics
>>     <https://research.csiro.au/ei>
>>     Team Leader – Environmental Information Infrastructure
>>     CSIRO Land and Water <http://www.csiro.au/Research/LWF>
>>     **
>>     *E*simon.cox@csiro.au <mailto:simon.cox@csiro.au> *T*+61 3 9545
>>     2365 *M*+61 403 302 672
>>     /Mail:/ Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169
>>     /Visit: /Central Reception,//Research Way, Clayton, Vic 3168
>>     ///honey.zebra.chip <https://w3w.co/honey.zebra.chip>
>>     /Workstation:/ Building 209 ///couple.page.roses
>>     <https://w3w.co/couple.page.roses>
>>     /Deliver: /Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168
>>     people.csiro.au/Simon-Cox <http://people.csiro.au/Simon-Cox>
>>     orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420 <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420>
>>     github.com/dr-shorthair <https://github.com/dr-shorthair>
>>     Twitter @dr_shorthair <https://twitter.com/dr_shorthair>
>>     https://xkcd.com/1810/
>>     CSIRO acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land, sea and
>>     waters, of the area that we live and work on across Australia. We
>>     acknowledge their continuing connection to their culture and we
>>     pay our respects to their Elders past and present.
>>     The information contained in this email may be confidential or
>>     privileged. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If
>>     you have received this email in error, please delete it
>>     immediately and notify the sender by return email. Thank you. To
>>     the extent permitted by law, CSIRO does not represent, warrant
>>     and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been
>>     maintained or that the communication is free of errors, virus,
>>     interception or interference.
>>     CSIRO Australia’sNational Science Agency  | csiro.au
>>     <https://www.csiro.au/>

Antoine Zimmermann
Institut Henri Fayol
École des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
CS 62362
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
Member of team Connected Intelligence, Laboratoire Hubert Curien
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2020 09:43:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:46:05 UTC