[open-linguistics] Inclusion of 'non-open' resources in the LLOD cloud diagram

[Víctor Rodríguez Doncel]

Hi Jim,

thanks for your comments. See my answer below:

El 08/09/2015 a las 12:44, Jim O'Regan escribió:
> On 7 September 2015 at 15:47, Víctor Rodríguez Doncel 
> <vrodriguez at fi.upm.es <mailto:vrodriguez at fi.upm.es>> wrote:
>
>     Dear John,
>
>     Thanks for posting this relevant question.
>
>     As a collection I would love to see it as inclusive as possible.
>     Please do remind that the O in LLOD can also be interpreted as
>     "Open Standards" rather than "Open Data".
>
>
> The problem with that is that the 'Open' is clearly in reference to 
> the Linking Open Data project, which explicitly exists to link Open 
> Data 
> (http://www.w3.org/wiki/SweoIG/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/LinkingOpenData#Project_Description). 
> LOD (and Open Data, Open Culture, Open Source) has sufficient 
> mindshare that attempting to replace the known value of 'Open' with 
> another would seem deliberately deceptive.
I share your opinion, but it is not unanymous. I remember this thread 
with Kingsley Idehen, where I actually defended your view.
https://twitter.com/kidehen/status/557011200375271424 
<https://twitter.com/kidehen/status/557011200375271424?lang=es>

<https://twitter.com/kidehen/status/557011200375271424?lang=es>
>
> Why not just drop 'Open'? Does keeping it serve some other purpose 
> that outweighs its potential to mislead?

I fully agree, although the acronym "LLOD" has already been promoted and 
it is recognized by others.

>     Which is the rationale behind excluding valuable Linked Data
>     resources?
>
>     Also, having non-free resources empowers the value of
>     free-resources ---the more resources in the cloud the higher the
>     value of each of them separatedly. A partially commercial LLOD
>     matches the web in general --which is also partially commercial.
>
>
> 'Commercial' and 'not Open' do not mean the same thing, though. Much 
> of the (genuinely) Open Data _is_ commercial: commercially produced, 
> commercially consumed... far beyond a single commercial activity of 
> making proprietary data available for sale.
>
> Commercial _consumers_ are the primary beneficiaries of LOD, as it 
> greatly simplifies matters for them. Even if the question were only of 
> licensing, the prospect of having to check each resource to obtain a 
> licence is often enough (or, rather, *was*, pre-LOD) to dissuade many 
> potential commercial consumers from using *any* linked data. But it's 
> not simply a question of licensing: much linguistic data is collected 
> on the strict condition that it never be commercialised, so there 
> isn't even the possibility of obtaining a licence.
>
> It can also be against the interests of commercial producers to have 
> their data included as nominally open data, as in jurisdictions with 
> strong advertising requirements they could run the risk of finding 
> themselves unable to demand the purchase of licences.
Yes, I agree.
>
> Also, I don't think it's helpful to group together CC-BY-SA and 
> CC-BY-NC. CC-BY-SA has restrictions, sure, but only if you are 
> preparing derivative works or redistributing - not when using (neither 
> activity is considered "use" under copyright law in Berne signatory 
> countries) - whereas CC-BY-NC forbids commercial use[1].
>
They belong to the set of Creative Commons licenses that do not comply 
with the OpenDefinition here http://opendefinition.org/
I also used that categories when drawing diagrams here: 
http://www.cosasbuenas.es/blog/how-o-is-lod-2015

Regards,
Víctor

>
> [1] The text of the licence restricts this only to activities that are 
> generally considered the domain of copyright law. IANAL, but I don't 
> imagine it would take a particularly good lawyer to successfully make 
> the case that making CC-BY-NC data available for query in a publicly 
> accessible database counts as either 'public display' or 'public 
> performance'.


-- 
Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel
D3205 - Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
ETS de Ingenieros Informáticos
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Campus de Montegancedo s/n
Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, Spain
Tel. (+34) 91336 3753
Skype: vroddon3



---
El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-linguistics/attachments/20150908/0a06b8f5/attachment-0003.html>