[odc-discuss] [ODC-Discuss] machine-recognizable labelling

Jonathan Rochkind rochkind at jhu.edu
Tue Jan 27 14:58:11 UTC 2009


And, Jordan, what do you mean by putting the text of the PDDL "somewhere 
in the database."  Does it need to actually be _in the database_, and if 
so, why?  Can't it be on the website of the organization hosting the 
database, along with clear language explaining what it applies to? 

Jonathan

Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> Thanks a lot Jordan! With this, maybe me and Rob will try to put 
> together an example/instructions document, and then run it by you to see 
> if we hit everything we need to?
>
> If only _some_ records in the database are covered by the PDDL (assume 
> the entirety of each of those individual records, but not ALL records in 
> the database), then it would suffice to mark those records in some clear 
> and designated way, right? Like, say, including the PDDL URI in them. 
> :)  Yes?
>
> Jonathan
>
> Jordan S Hatcher wrote:
>   
>> On 13 Jan 2009, at 17:33, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> It looks like the other part we need though, according to Jordan, is
>>> instructions for how you legally release your data under ODC PDDL.
>>> Jordan suggests that just putting a URI on your data is not sufficient,
>>> you need to make a legal release via some other means. That's what we
>>> need a template/example for.
>>>
>>> The technical stuff Rob talks about below, I (and Rob) are capable of
>>> coming up with examples. It's the legal stuff for what you need to do to
>>> ensure your data really has been released according to your intentions,
>>> that we don't neccesarily have competence for without some legal aid.
>>>
>>> Rob, does Talis want to pay for a bit more lawyer to get that done? :)
>>>       
>> Thanks for the referral Jonathan!
>>
>> But seriously -- there really isn't a "legal" bit here. Just a need to 
>> create a document on how best to use the PDDL with the following 
>> parameters:
>>
>> -- Simply putting a URI in the metadata isn't enough; and involves
>> -- Putting the text of the PDDL somewhere in the database
>>
>> The key is that:
>>
>> -- users know *exactly what is covered by the PDDL
>> -- users can easily find out the text of the PDDL
>>
>> That's really a job for everyone that works with databases everyday 
>> and knows what would work best as a practical matter.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> ~Jordan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>> Rob Styles wrote:
>>>       
>>>> I am now...
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Jonathan, it seems like a great opportunity to make ODC 
>>>> PDDL
>>>> more usable - by providing
>>>>
>>>>   - A URI that associates specific versions of the PDDL with a 
>>>> release of
>>>>   data
>>>>   - A template for adding the license to RDF specifically (that may 
>>>> have to
>>>>   include the specific text).
>>>>
>>>> Hello everyone.
>>>>
>>>> rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Jonathan Rochkind 
>>>> <rochkind at jhu.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> odc-discuss mailing list
>>>>> odc-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>         
>>> -- 
>>> Jonathan Rochkind
>>> Digital Services Software Engineer
>>> The Sheridan Libraries
>>> Johns Hopkins University
>>> 410.516.8886
>>> rochkind (at) jhu.edu
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> odc-discuss mailing list
>>> odc-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>> http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss
>>>       
>
>   

-- 
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