[odc-discuss] Fwd: Re: [pedantic-web] Historic place-name modelling part N

Tue Jul 26 19:46:55 UTC 2011

It is probably better to apply the ODbL to the individual datasets
where possible.

Rufus

On 29 June 2011 13:04, Jo Walsh <jo.walsh at ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Damian thinks that ODbL should apply to the dataset as a whole, so applying
> it to collections of datasets is inappropriate - see below.
>
> Is there prior art / consensus that applying it to chunks of the db at a
> time is a bad idea?
> phone: +441316502973
>
>
> Damian Steer <pldms at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> [sorry, forgot to Cc you when I replied] On 29 Jun 2011, at 10:56, Jo
>> Walsh wrote: > Just after the New Year we had a chat about historic
>> place-name modelling and vocabularies. I'm now in
>> last-day-of-frotting-the-demo mode and would benefit from instruction on
>> what i'm now doing wrong :) > >
>> http://geoxwalk-at.edina.ac.uk/chalice/place/linked/cheshire/prestbury/bosley/bosley/boselega
>> > > (and the turtle output is also included at the bottom here) > > My main
>> problem is the difference between URI-for-object and URI-for-document. There
>> is a license statement at the bottom - ODbL, yay! - > but it currently is
>> attached to the URI used to identify the *place* - which is not
>> differentiated from the document itself. Hi Jo, This may either beg the
>> question or simplify things ;-) ODbL covers databases not individual or
>> small collections of facts. I'd expect the licence to apply to the larger
>> dataset this page is part of. You could try something like: <>
>> void:inDataset <...dataset id...> . <...dataset id...> a void:Dataset ;
>> dc:license <http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/> . Damian
>
> _______________________________________________
> odc-discuss mailing list
> odc-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss
>
>

-- 
Co-Founder, Open Knowledge Foundation
Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age
http://www.okfn.org/ - http://blog.okfn.org/