[ontoiop-forum] "Dataset description" paper about the OntoIOp registry submitted: questions about license and API4KB

[Peter Yim]

Dear Christoph and All,

Thank you very much for the input and the well thought through
recommendations.

In particular, re. choice of license ...

> [CL] 1. License of the dataset: A linked open dataset should have a
license, which you usually choose from a small set of well-known licenses
depending on your requirements.  After some initial research I found the
following ones appropriate.  ...  I believe that a share-alike license is
too restrictive, so ...

[ppy]  +1 on your disposition ... thank you for doing the research; I
applaud your recommendation.

> [CL] ... so two reasonable ones remain ... [ ODC 1.0 or CC0]

[ppy] besides those two, one might also consider "CC BY 4.0" - see:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Depending on the preference of the majority of the OntoIOp WG/community, I
would be happy with anyone of these three choices - ODC-1.0, CC0 OR
CC-BY-4.0 ... personally, if we are taking a poll, then I would vote for
CC-BY-4.0.

Thanks and regards. =ppy
--


On Oct 8, 2014 9:43 AM, "Christoph LANGE" <math.semantic.web at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> [@Tara plus maybe @Elisa: something specifically for you about API4KB
below]
>
> at
http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/ontoiop-registry-–-dataset-supporting-ontology-model-and-specification-integration-and
(interesting, a URL with a Unicode "em dash") there is a paper submission
by me, Till and Oliver, describing the OntoIOp Registry from a linked
dataset perspective.
>
> It was a last-minute effort before an individually extended deadline, so
we had no chance to have a deeper interaction in this community _before_
submission.
>
> However, I believe that two issues are of more general interest, so why
not discuss them now.  Hoping that the paper will not be rejected (I am
reasonably confident about it, was we have "ticked" many of the "boxes" by
which a linked dataset is measured), we will then still have the chance to
"fix" them in the next round of the submission process.
>
> 1. License of the dataset: A linked open dataset should have a license,
which you usually choose from a small set of well-known licenses depending
on your requirements.  After some initial research I found the following
ones appropriate.  BTW whatever the license, no one will be able to _mess_
with _the_ _real_ registry at its official URI=URL anyway, as we own the
http://purl.net/dol redirect.  I think the "reuse" scenario of
incorporating variants of data from the Registry, or the republication of
dumps of the registry (possible in alternative formats) is the more likely
scenario.  I believe that a share-alike license is too restrictive, so two
reasonable ones remain:
>
> http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/ (summary at
http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/summary/) – permits pretty much
anything but requires attribution of the original source (I guess something
like "derived from the OntoIOp Registry, (c) the OntoIOp WG").
>
> http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ – public domain =
anything allowed.  Just that there is a more water-tight legal framework,
i.e. the CC0 license is safer than just attaching a string "public domain".
>
> Do you have any opinions?  I hope this won't be too hard a decision, but
should be taken by consensus.
>
> 2. API4KB's OntoIOp Terminology ontology (
https://github.com/API4KBs/api4kbs/blob/master/ontologies/OntoIOpTerminology.rdf)
and its relation to LoLa: LoLa plays a role in the paper in that it is the
vocabulary of the "OntoIOp Registry" dataset in its current state. The
"OntoIOp Terminology" ontology (@Tara: Till made me aware of it, and I've
had a first look) appears to be very similar – but may have been designed
to be different in order to support different use cases (of which I am not
fully aware, but happy to learn).  In the paper I promised (and thus have
to do it within a few days, before the reviewers are assigned) that I
would, because of this similarity, align LoLa with the OntoIOp
Terminology.  I'm planning to drop several "LoLaConcept EquivalentClass
OntoIOpTerminologyConcept" links into LoLa and then point you to them as a
basis for a further alignment discussion.  Does this make sense?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> Christoph Lange, Enterprise Information Systems Department
> Applied Computer Science @ University of Bonn; Fraunhofer IAIS
> http://langec.wordpress.com/about, Skype duke4701
>
> → SEMANTiCS conference: Transfer–Engineering–Community.
>   Leipzig, Germany, 4–5 September (workshops 1–3 September).
>   Including Vocabulary Carnival, LOD for SMEs, Linked Data Quality.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> To Post: mailto:ontoiop-forum at ovgu.de
> Message Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de//pipermail/ontoiop-forum
> Config/Unsubscribe:
https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum
> Community Files (open): http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/
> Community Wiki: http://ontoiop.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/ontoiop-forum/attachments/20141008/703be235/attachment-0001.html>