I am fine with that, but we need an approach for promoting linked data that does not interfere with existing business structures and revenue models. It's like GPL vs. LPGL - bundling a new perspective with enforcing a new business culture (as in GPL) means many businesses will rule out accepting your proposal/contribution, however valuable it may be. No major software house imports a single line of GPL code, no matter how wonderful it may be.
On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:10 PM, Christopher Gutteridge wrote: > Maybe Silver Stars and Gold Stars? or just Stars for the linking and format > and Gold for the license? > > On 09/03/11 21:03, Martin Hepp wrote: >> Dear Tim, all: >> >>> ★ Available on the web (whatever format), but with an open licence >>> ★★ Available as machine-readable structured data (e.g. Excel instead of >>> image scan of a table) >>> ★★★ As (2) plus non-proprietary format (e.g. CSV instead of Excel) >>> ★★★★ All the above, plus: use open standards from W3C (RDF and >>> SPARQL) to identify things, so that people can point at your stuff >>> ★★★★★ All the above, plus: link your data to other people’s data to >>> provide context >> I fear that the "open" requirement as the entrance gate for the star schema >> means that e-commerce data will be excluded. >> >> Most providers of e-commerce data (offers, model data, images,...) will >> - want to put some constraints on the usage of their data or >> - cannot release the data under an open license because they are bound by >> their licensing conditions to the actual creator of the page. >> >> For example, no shop owner can grant you an open license on the product >> images or the advertising text of the items if this was provided by the >> manufacturer. Or they cannot release the product model data freely, because >> they often buy it from data intermediaries. >> >> It would be desirable to have standardized licenses, identified by a URI, >> which cater for those needs. For example, a license that says >> >> - foaf:homepage links to the human-readable page must not be removed from >> the page, and/or >> - foaf:page / foaf:homepage links must be shown and clickable on any >> human-readable rendering of the original RDF data. >> >> The URI for the license is important since checking for allowable uses of >> the data can be automated then. Proprietary licenses make reusing data too >> difficult, since evaluating the license is the new AI barrier even if the >> content integration is facilitated by RDF and OWL. >> >> So in a nutshell, I strongly suggest to weaken the "open license" >> requirement to "a license identified by a URI". Or, grant one star for each >> condition that is met so that such a site can get four stars. >> >> Otherwise you state that a manufacturer or shop site that obeys all linked >> data rules and puts out a lot of valuable data in RDF does not even deserve >> a single star. >> >> >> Best >> >> Martin Hepp >> >> >> >> On Mar 9, 2011, at 9:46 PM, Bill Roberts wrote: >> >>> I like the new(ish) addition to >>> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html on 5-star data. >>> Unfortunately it looks like TimBL typed it with his eyes shut :-) >>> >>> Since it's a much read and much referenced document, I'd like to offer the >>> following version with typos corrected. Perhaps someone with permission to >>> edit this page might want to copy and paste it in. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> Is your data 5 Star? >>> >>> (Added 2010). This year, in order to encourage people - especially >>> government data owners - along the road to good linked data, I have >>> developed this star rating system. >>> >>> ★ Available on the web (whatever format), but with an open licence >>> ★★ Available as machine-readable structured data (e.g. Excel instead of >>> image scan of a table) >>> ★★★ As (2) plus non-proprietary format (e.g. CSV instead of Excel) >>> ★★★★ All the above, plus: use open standards from W3C (RDF and >>> SPARQL) to identify things, so that people can point at your stuff >>> ★★★★★ All the above, plus: link your data to other people’s data to >>> provide context >>> >>> How well does your data do? You can buy 5 star data mugs, T-shirts and >>> bumper stickers from the W3C shop at Cafepress: use them to get your >>> colleagues and fellow conference-goers thinking 5 star linked data. >>> (Profits also help W3C :-). >>> >>> Now in 2010, people have been pressing me, for government data, to add a >>> new requirement, and that is there should be metadata about the data >>> itself, and that that metadata should be available from a major catalog. >>> Any open dataset (or even datasets which are not but should be open) can be >>> registered at ckan.net. Government datasets from the UK and US should be >>> registered at data.gov.uk or data.gov respectively. Other countries I >>> expect to develop their own registries. Yes, there should be metadata about >>> your dataset. That may be the subject of a new note in this series. >> > > -- > Christopher Gutteridge -- http://id.ecs.soton.ac.uk/person/1248 > > / Lead Developer, EPrints Project, http://eprints.org/ > / Web Projects Manager, ECS, University of Southampton, > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/ > / Webmaster, Web Science Trust, http://www.webscience.org/ >
