[open-linguistics] Defining "Openness" for Linguistic Linked Open Data

[John McCrae]

Hi all,

I can say that we are going to update the methodology for producing the
LLOD cloud soon and we will look into the issue of non-open resources. I
think it is a good idea to include some non-open resources as they may be
targets of linking from open resources, however we should not include
non-open resources that are not linked to/from open resources. The option
of graying-out non-open resources or otherwise clearly indicating that they
are not open is a necessary step.

Regards,
John

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Sebastian Nordhoff <
sebastian.nordhoff at glottotopia.de> wrote:

> > Alternatively, we could stay with one diagram, in which the difference
> > between proper OD-licensed bubbles and NC are more clearly emphasized
> > underlined by graphical means, e.g., the color of borders (none for NC?)
> > and arrows (light gray for NC) [but not fill color, as this is used for
> > sub-classifying resource categories, already].
>
>
> could we not set the alpha channel to 50% for non-open resources, thus
> greying them out a bit? The graph would remain complete then, but the
> first class and second class members would be clearly distinguishable
> Sebastian
> _______________________________________________
> open-linguistics mailing list
> open-linguistics at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-linguistics
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-linguistics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-linguistics/attachments/20180130/aa58a673/attachment-0003.html>