- From: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 23:45:56 +0000
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Thank you David - Yes, I fully understand the model: standard license = no extra lawyering. The proposal is to use a standard license for UCUM - i.e. CC BY-ND. If you check the Trac issue you will see I explicitly say this - https://ucum.org/trac/ticket/5778. However, I have suggested that some clarification of the way the license is intended to apply to the two main concerns would be helpful. These are (a) potential users want to be reassured that mentioning individual UCUM codes in the context of an application is allowed (yes, it is encouraged!) and that the attribution requirement is not onerous (it is not required on each code) (b) the custodians of UCUM want to keep control of the spec document - so the 'No Derivatives' prohibition applies to that (and not to individual codes). I had suggested just adding a brief (non-normative?) note making the scope and resolution of these two concerns explicit, so that developers don't get unintentionally scared off. This is not intended change the license, but to clarify how the rules apply to the different artefacts within UCUM. Note that this proposal has not yet been adopted for UCUM, but I am pushing hard. Simon -----Original Message----- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org> Sent: Thursday, 25 February, 2021 01:11 To: semantic-web@w3.org; Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> Subject: Re: [External] Re: UCUM licensing [was Re: Blank nodes must DIE! ] On 2/24/21 5:56 AM, Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) wrote: > I have suggested that UCUM replace the non-standard license with CC > BY-ND, also with explicit clarification on the BY obligation and ND > prohibition – see https://ucum.org/trac/ticket/5778 . Thank you so much for taking this on, but it sounds like there may still be one important issue: Are you proposing to use a *standard* CC BY-ND license or not? There is a big difference between a *standard* license and one that is *almost* the same as a standard license. If the license is not standard, the potential user is forced to figure out the legal details of that license, potentially get lawyers to evaluate it, and perhaps even get management approval. It also means that search tools cannot automatically recognize it as a known standard license This is the genius of Creative Commons standard licenses: they greatly reduce barriers to reuse, because there is no need for expensive or time-consuming legal evaluation. The licenses are already widely understood and easily recognized. I would strongly urge you to adopt a *standard* CC license if at all possible -- with no changes. Thanks, David Booth > > If anyone on this thread thinks that would still be problematic, then > please speak up urgently! > > *From:*Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> > *Sent:* Thursday, 28 January, 2021 18:43 > *To:* phayes@ihmc.us > *Cc:* Abhyankar, Swapna <sabhyank@regenstrief.org>; > "“semantic-web@w3.org”" <semantic-web@w3.org>; David Booth > <david@dbooth.org>; Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr> > *Subject:* [ExternalEmail] RE: [External] Re: UCUM licensing [was Re: > Blank nodes must DIE! ] > > Indeed Pat, I agree, and actually the people behind UCUM do as well > (I’ve asked them). But plenty of people in our community have found > the wording in the ‘Terms of Use’ sufficiently fierce, and > non-standard that they prefer to just walk away. Which is bad for UCUM > and bad for the rest of us. > > I’ve put this high up on the agenda in the UCUM advisory board. > > *From:*phayes@ihmc.us <mailto:phayes@ihmc.us> <phayes@ihmc.us > <mailto:phayes@ihmc.us>> > *Sent:* Friday, 15 January, 2021 10:56 > *To:* Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au > <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>> > *Cc:* Abhyankar, Swapna <sabhyank@regenstrief.org > <mailto:sabhyank@regenstrief.org>>; "“semantic-web@w3.org > <mailto:semantic-web@w3.org>”" <semantic-web@w3.org > <mailto:semantic-web@w3.org>>; David Booth <david@dbooth.org > <mailto:david@dbooth.org>>; Maxime Lefrançois > <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>> > *Subject:* Re: [External] Re: UCUM licensing [was Re: Blank nodes must > DIE! ] > > On Jan 14, 2021, at 1:10 PM, Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) > <Simon.Cox@csiro.au <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>> wrote: > > Just found this draft that I should have sent 4 months ago. > > ----------- > > Thanks Swapna – > > Looking athttps://ucum.org/trac/wiki/TermsOfUseI see the following > issues: > > Clause 1) > > “…users shall not use any of the Licensed Materials for the purpose > of developing or promulgating a different standard for identifying > units of measure …” > > It has been proposed to use UCUM codes in the context of RDF data to > indicate the scale for quantity data. The exact arrangement has not > been decided. But it is expected that it will be necessary to use > web-links for individual units-of-measure, which will include the > UCUM code as an element or an argument. Dereferencing these should > get a , and that these should > > QUDT (http://qudt.org/) is a different standard, designed with an > RDF/OWL/SHACL representation. Every unit-of-measure in the QUDT > vocabulary is ‘identified’ using a URI. There is an (optional) field > in QUDT to add the UCUM code as an ‘annotation’ on an individual > description, to support cross-matching or to enable discovery using > the UCUM code. But the use of UCUM codes in the context of QUDT > appears to violate this provision. > > Surely that turns on what constitutes "use" of the licensed materials. > I could argue a case in court that placing a hyperlink in an > annotation, for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the > licenced materials, does not constitute use. In fact I believe this > very matter recently came before a European court and was decided in > the rational way. Sorry I do not have the links handy. > > Pat Hayes > > Simon > > *From:*Abhyankar, Swapna <sabhyank@regenstrief.org > <mailto:sabhyank@regenstrief.org>> > *Sent:*Friday, 4 September, 2020 01:15 > *To:*“semantic-web@w3.org <mailto:semantic-web@w3.org>” > <semantic-web@w3.org <mailto:semantic-web@w3.org>> > *Cc:*David Booth <david@dbooth.org <mailto:david@dbooth.org>>; > Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr > <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>> > *Subject:*Re: [External] Re: UCUM licensing [was Re: Blank nodes > must DIE! ] > > Hi everyone, > > Can someone please summarize the issues related to the UCUM terms of > use? We are in the process of updating the terms, so your timing is > perfect, but the bottom line is that when the codes are used in > conjunction with clinical data, no copyright notice will be required. > > Thank you! > > -Swapna > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > *Swapna Abhyankar, MD* > > Interim Director > > LOINC and Health Data Standards > > <image001.png> > > 1101 West Tenth Street > > Indianapolis, IN 46202 > > Confidentiality Notice: The contents of this message and any files > transmitted with it may contain confidential and/or privileged > information and are intended solely for the use of the named > addressee(s). Additionally, the information contained herein may > have been disclosed to you from medical records with confidentiality > protected by federal and state laws. Federal regulations and State > laws prohibit you from making further disclosure of such information > without the specific written consent of the person to whom the > information pertains or as otherwise permitted by such regulations. > A general authorization for the release of medical or other > information is not sufficient for this purpose. > > If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender > by return e-mail and delete the original message. Any retention, > disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this information by > anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. > > *From:*Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr > <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>> > *Date:*Thursday, September 3, 2020 at 10:22 AM > *To:*David Booth <david@dbooth.org <mailto:david@dbooth.org>> > *Cc:*"“semantic-web@w3.org <mailto:semantic-web@w3.org>”" > <semantic-web@w3.org <mailto:semantic-web@w3.org>>, "Abhyankar, > Swapna" <sabhyank@regenstrief.org <mailto:sabhyank@regenstrief.org>> > *Subject:*[External] Re: UCUM licensing [was Re: Blank nodes must > DIE! ] > > This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution > when clicking links or opening attachments from external sources. > > Dear all, > > I am very happy to see that things are moving in the right direction > with UCUM! Thanks a lot! > > I am looking forward to resuming the work on cdt:ucum, and would be > excited to see it usable in triplestores. > > Best regards, > > Maxime Lefrançois > > MINES Saint-Étienne > > http://maxime-lefrancois.info/ > > Le jeu. 3 sept. 2020 à 16:15, David Booth <david@dbooth.org > <mailto:david@dbooth.org>> a écrit : > > FYI, Swapna Abhyankar from Regenstrief (copied) is working on > updating > the UCUM license, and reached out to me to understand the > concerns that > have been raised on this list. I suggested that he join this > discussion, to directly understand all concerns. > > David Booth > > On 9/3/20 5:43 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > > Indeed, Dave. The datatype discussed in this thread is the one > > colloquially identified as cdt:ucum, which stands for: > > > >http://w3id.org/lindt/custom_datatypes#ucum > > > > 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 > > URI. > > > > 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. > > > > > > --AZ > > > > > > > > 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 > <mailto:dave.reynolds@epimorphics.com>> > >>> *Sent:* Thursday, 3 September, 2020 17:49 > >>> *To:*semantic-web@w3.org <mailto: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> > >>> > >>> <mailto: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 > <http://40mail.gmail.com/>%3E&References=%3CCAFfrAFqgq7JxxwzEhYoMV70haRznXkjLBiOwhQUjwGJ0S0vsug%40mail.gmail.com > <http://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:*E*simon.cox@csiro.au><mailto: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><http://people.csiro.au/Simon-Cox> > >>> > >>> orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420 > <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420><http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420> > >>> > >>> github.com/dr-shorthair > <http://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 <http://csiro.au/> > >>> <https://www.csiro.au/> > >>> > > >
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2021 23:47:01 UTC