[open-archaeology] Open licenses for archaeological data matter: the case of AustArch

[Anthony Beck]

These clarifications are very helpful. Thanks.

On 01/08/14 09:49, Michael Charno wrote:
> On 31/07/14 18:19, Anthony Beck wrote:
>> Assuming the sem-web stuff happens then licences that stop/inhibit the 
>> computer-based aggregation, inference and product derivation are 
>> problematic.
> I'll quickly respond to this as its been brought up twice in this thread 
> and unaddressed thus far.  Our LOD has always been published as CC0, 
> which as you imply, is a prerequisite for this area.  We haven't badged 
> the HTML serializations of our LOD with CC0 logos, but i will do that 
> today to make it completely unambiguous.  
Thanks
> We fully understand how this 
> stuff works, and have never hid any of our LOD serializations behind a 
> T&C challenge that would indicate intentions otherwise.
:-)
>
> Its also worth pointing out that our LOD and archive data are two very 
> different things, which is why we are comfortable licensing it 
> differently.  Most of our LOD is actually metadata (about our archives), 
> which has always been fully Open (as you know we have OAI-PMH targets 
> which publish archive, journal, Grey Lit, Image Bank and OASIS metadata 
> in around 10 different metadata schemas). 
I agree: metadata should be licensed CC0 otherwise it's incapable of
serving its purpose. Which reminds me that I have not explicitly stated
this in our data repository.

Could you expand on the above statement and describe your intentions
surrounding data and data licences in the LOD stack? This question
assumes that you will place data (not metadata) into this LOD stack at
some point as a matter of course rather than as a test/pilot initiative
(I appreciate such a scenario is  likely to be in the long-term). The
subtext of this assumption is that what you have done as a test/pilot
may not be representative of what you may want to do in the future. I
understand that anything you say in response should not be interpreted
as formal ADS policy but solely as your opinion (hence, it should not be
taken out of context).

If you do data, then I am hoping it would be open enough to avoid
licence incompatibilities (for example between CC-NC-SA and CC_SA)
during any aggregation component. I would also be interested in your
thoughts on any potential licence hiccoughs between the 'exposed' LOD
and the 'archived' data.

Thanks

A
> Ultimately our LOD sits 
> outside of our conceptual "OAIS Archive", which enables us to publish 
> that data under a different license but doesn't afford it the processes 
> and management associated with our OAIS implementation.
>
> Cheers,
> michael
> _______________________________________________
> open-archaeology mailing list
> open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-archaeology
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-archaeology
>