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

Rob Styles rob.styles at dynamicorange.com
Tue Jan 13 17:20:44 UTC 2009 

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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/attachments/20090113/ecd36a34/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the odc-discuss mailing list