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

Jo Walsh jo.walsh at ed.ac.uk
Wed Jun 29 12:04:30 UTC 2011

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 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/attachments/20110629/47e8b43b/attachment.html>

More information about the odc-discuss mailing list