[odc-discuss] [ODC-Discuss] machine-recognizable labelling
Jordan S Hatcher
jordan at opencontentlawyer.com
Tue Jan 27 12:57:50 UTC 2009
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
More information about the odc-discuss
mailing list