[odc-discuss] [ODC-Discuss] machine-recognizable labelling
Jonathan Rochkind
rochkind at jhu.edu
Tue Jan 13 16:37:33 UTC 2009
Okay, thanks. If there's anything I can do to help with this, let me
know. Unfortuantely, I'm not a lawyer, and don't know the answer to this
question myself, or I'd contribute an example right now! But it is very
important to me that we get this worked out asap--there is a need for it
right now, people are wanting to release open data using the ODDC PDL
right now.
I do however have some familiarity with IP law, from several courses I
took in school and a personal interest. If there's anything I can do to
help, let me know.
Jonathan
Jordan S Hatcher wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 13, 2009, at 3:24 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>
>> Thanks, that's helpful.
>>
>> So you think it's okay to link to that URI, as long as you do
>> something _else_ to actually release your data. Can you supply a
>> sample procedure you would use to make sure the data is actually
>> released properly, and then use that consistent URI as an identifier
>> in the records themselves? Or does that approach legal advice you
>> can't give us?
>
> It doesn't -- basically you just have to associate the PDDL with what
> you are dedicating and be clear about your dedication and what it
> contains. Examples are something that should go into the licence /
> project development -- and will. At the moment it is a matter of time
> and number of contributors to the project.
>
>
>>
>> Any ideas as to timeline for the "transition to hosting at OKF",
>> which I hadn't previously heard about? (Not even sure what OKF is).
>
> Open Knowledge Foundation, which was hinted at on the blog but not
> formally announced I believe on the ODC site (though I did send an
> email around about it):
>
> <http://www.opendatacommons.org/2008/11/26/updates-on-the-open-data-commons-project/>
>
>
> <http://www.okfn.org/>
>
> And should be added to:
>
> <http://www.okfn.org/projects>
>
> (Rufus or Jonathan Gray?)
>
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> Jordan S Hatcher wrote:
>>> Hi Jonathan,
>>>
>>> Rob and Talis people are (I htink) on this list but since it is so
>>> low traffic I will have to check.
>>>
>>> There is a difference between using a link to the PDDL as the only
>>> way of licensing your work and linking to the URI to make that
>>> choice clearer to machines.
>>>
>>> The only thing that I think should NOT happen is that someone links
>>> to the PDDL using licence metadata and does NOT do anything else to
>>> license the data. That is an incorrect way of using it IMO for the
>>> reasons I mentioned.
>>>
>>> The current URI should remain stable and could be used in this
>>> manner. I leave it up to volunteers such as yourself and others
>>> more technically inclined to take up this section of the work once
>>> the site has fully transitioned to hosting at OKF.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> ~Jordan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 30, 2008, at 2:52 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>>>
>>>> I note that the current CC public domain dedication makes you go
>>>> through an interactive process to register your public domain
>>>> dedication, but once are done, it does give you a standard uniform
>>>> hosted-by-CC URI to link to:
>>>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
>>>>
>>>> I'd assume CC0 will do similar. There is a LOT of utility to having
>>>> this standard uniform URI.
>>>>
>>>> Rob Styles, are you on this list? Or anyone from Talis? Any ideas?
>>>> It's really a handicap to the use of the ODC PDDL to not have this
>>>> uniform URI that can be used.
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>>>>> Hi Jordan, thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Using my own local URI doesn't quite work. The issue is having a
>>>>> _standard_ machine recognizable URL on the internet in general.
>>>>>
>>>>> To compare to CC, a standard machine recognizable URL for CC
>>>>> licenses means that Google can spider the net and know what things
>>>>> are CC licensed. Anything that has a <link rel="license"
>>>>> href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/"> has a CC-BY
>>>>> license, and their software can automatically include it in
>>>>> Google's special index of freely licensed stuff. If every
>>>>> licensor was using their own local URI for their CC-BY license,
>>>>> that wouldn't work.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a lot of utility to this with the ODC-PDDL too,
>>>>> especially since our data is often aggregated in giant databases.
>>>>> I might want to collect a subset of "all of this bibliographic
>>>>> data I have access to" limited to ODC-PDDL stuff. The most
>>>>> straightforward way to do this is if all of the data has a
>>>>> _standard_ URI signifying ODC-PDDL in a standard place.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this make sense? I understand where you're coming from
>>>>> too--putting your data in the public domain is indeed a big deal.
>>>>> But your approach seems potentially incompatible with that
>>>>> important purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would assume that once CC0 is finished, there will be a standard
>>>>> URI for that, like there is for all CC licenses, that people can
>>>>> link to? Even though CC0 too will be a public domain dedication?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or wait, now I realize I have another question, there may be
>>>>> bigger problems. The ODC PDDL is clearly intended to apply to an
>>>>> entire database. What if I have a database where _some_ of the
>>>>> records were imported from someone who applied the ODC PDDL to
>>>>> them, but others of the records were imported from someone who did
>>>>> not. Is this a problem?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>
>>>>> Jordan S Hatcher wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Jonathan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apologies for not getting back to you sooner. This is a very low
>>>>>> population list and traffic list, and at the moment I'm the main
>>>>>> driving force for work on Open Data Commons (and I'm very busy!).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The short answer is that dedicating your work to the public
>>>>>> domain is a pretty big deal, especially in comparison to just
>>>>>> licensing it. That's why as a project I decided that users
>>>>>> should use a copy of the PDDL directly on what they do. Linking
>>>>>> to a document somewhere else on the net (such as CC does) means
>>>>>> that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- you (the user/linker of the PDDL) are less likely to read the
>>>>>> document
>>>>>> -- your users (those receiving databases/data under the PDDL) are
>>>>>> less likely to read the document
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a legal matter, it is clearer that you have an intent to
>>>>>> dedicate the work to the public domain when you use the text
>>>>>> itself on something, which means that it is less likely that you
>>>>>> could turn around and try to take something back out of the
>>>>>> public domain (by arguing that you didn't know what you were
>>>>>> doing). Also, there is likely stricter legal requirements for
>>>>>> public domain dedications than for licences, and using the text
>>>>>> directly can help meet those requirements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a practical matter at this point you can:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- make your own URI with the text
>>>>>> -- copy the PDDL into the database as the disclaimer intends.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You could get in contact with EDINA at <http://edina.ac.uk/> to
>>>>>> see how they use the PDDL for their project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hope this helps. I'm catching up with open data work this week.
>>>>>> Also as the project progresses over the next few months, we'll be
>>>>>> addressing things such as this. If you'd like to be a part of
>>>>>> helping out with the project, please let me know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~Jordan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29 Dec 2008, at 23:12, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Um, so a month ago I said the below. Is anyone else on this list?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone have any idea why the ODC PDDL web page says "Do not link
>>>>>>> to this document as a means of using it for your content...
>>>>>>> please host it on your own site or apply it directly to the
>>>>>>> content you wish to be covered," what the rationale was for that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Knowing why that's there would be important for figuring out how
>>>>>>> to work around it without making some kind of mistake. It's
>>>>>>> important to me that there be some URI to identify ODC PDDL
>>>>>>> data. Otherwise, it's of less use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should I just use CC0 instead, which has such a URI?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi. I have been thinking about how to label data records that
>>>>>>>> have been
>>>>>>>> licensed/dedicated with the PDDL in a machine recognizable way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For instance, Creative Commons supports/reccommends, in an HTML
>>>>>>>> document
>>>>>>>> that is licensed under a CC license, including this HTML code:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <a rel="license"
>>>>>>>> href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/">
>>>>>>>> ... </a>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The key thing there is that the URI in the href there is a
>>>>>>>> persistent
>>>>>>>> identifier for a particular license. In HTML, you can use that <a
>>>>>>>> rel="license"> thing to say so, but in a non-HTML format, you
>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>> still find some other analagous appropriate way to advertise
>>>>>>>> the license
>>>>>>>> in a machine-readable way, and you'd use that same URI, and
>>>>>>>> software can
>>>>>>>> recognize that URI as identifying a particular license.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Google, for instance, uses that to support, in their 'advanced
>>>>>>>> search',
>>>>>>>> limiting search results to only CC licensed materials.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It would be useful to be able to have an analagous
>>>>>>>> machine-readable
>>>>>>>> notice of the PDDL in our data. If I am investigating a giant
>>>>>>>> corpus of
>>>>>>>> data, maybe that I have locally or maybe even out on the web,
>>>>>>>> some parts
>>>>>>>> of records might be under the/a PDDL, and it would be useful
>>>>>>>> for obvious
>>>>>>>> reasons to filter out those parts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The obviously analagous thing to do is to use the ODC PDDL URL
>>>>>>>> as an
>>>>>>>> identifier, like CC does. But, the web page for the ODC PDDL
>>>>>>>> seems to
>>>>>>>> discourage this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.opendatacommons.org/odc-public-domain-dedication-and-licence/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Do not link to this document as a means of using it for your
>>>>>>>> content.
>>>>>>>> If you choose, after consulting with an appropriate legal
>>>>>>>> professional,
>>>>>>>> to use this document, please host it on your own site or apply it
>>>>>>>> directly to the content you wish to be covered."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, embedding that URI in my records to indicate that it's
>>>>>>>> licensed/dedicated under the PDDL would seem to be prohibited.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am curious as to why, what the motivations were for this. Can
>>>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>>> answer that? That might help us figure out a solution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which could be hosting the PDDL at some other location that can be
>>>>>>>> linked to. Talis? Maybe CC would do it? Or, theoretically, it
>>>>>>>> could be
>>>>>>>> establishing an identifier that doesn't actually resolve to
>>>>>>>> license/dedication text, there's no reason the identifier
>>>>>>>> _needs_ to
>>>>>>>> resolve to text in order to function as a machine-recognizable
>>>>>>>> label.
>>>>>>>> But it's awfully convenient when it does, in part because it
>>>>>>>> allows you
>>>>>>>> figure out what it actually means, what the text of the
>>>>>>>> license/dedication that applies to the data so labelled is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any feedback here?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Jonathan Rochkind
>>>>>>> Digital Services Software Engineer
>>>>>>> The Sheridan Libraries
>>>>>>> Johns Hopkins University
>>>>>>> 410.516.8886 rochkind (at) jhu.edu
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> TCL-Discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> TCL-Discuss at lists.opencontentlawyer.com
>>>>>>> http://lists.opencontentlawyer.com/listinfo.cgi/tcl-discuss-opencontentlawyer.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _____
>>>>>> Mr. Jordan S. Hatcher
>>>>>> Head of Research
>>>>>> ipVA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> e: jordan.hatcher at ipvalueadded.com
>>>>>> m: +44 (0)7804 909 466
>>>>>> NEW blog: <http://www.tangible-ip.com>
>>>>>> skype: jshatcher_ipva
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Medius House | 2 Sheraton Street | London W1F 8BH IP Value Added
>>>>>> Ltd. | Registered 05601817 in England & Wales
>>>>>> =====
>>>>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This message may be privileged and
>>>>>> confidential and is solely for the use of the intended recipient.
>>>>>> Please notify the sender if you have received this email in error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jonathan Rochkind
>>>> Digital Services Software Engineer
>>>> The Sheridan Libraries
>>>> Johns Hopkins University
>>>> 410.516.8886 rochkind (at) jhu.edu
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> TCL-Discuss mailing list
>>>> TCL-Discuss at lists.opencontentlawyer.com
>>>> http://lists.opencontentlawyer.com/listinfo.cgi/tcl-discuss-opencontentlawyer.com
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Rochkind
>> Digital Services Software Engineer
>> The Sheridan Libraries
>> Johns Hopkins University
>> 410.516.8886 rochkind (at) jhu.edu
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Digital Services Software Engineer
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
More information about the odc-discuss
mailing list