On 7/25/13 2:08 PM, Víctor Rodríguez Doncel wrote:
Indeed, my latest post was rather short-sighted and I find much more
interesting the disquisitions about "supererogatory Linked Data" or
the abstracta analysis of "Data and Code and Speech". I wished the
former was explained a bit more clearl
Indeed, my latest post was rather short-sighted and I find much more
interesting the disquisitions about "supererogatory Linked Data" or the
abstracta analysis of "Data and Code and Speech". I wished the former
was explained a bit more clearly :)
And about the later: If we used computers bas
John, Kingsley,
Thanks for the valuable links you've sent.
Well, beyond the Pythagorean idea that "the world is made up of
numbers", if laws make a distinction Data/Code, so must we. And
international laws implement the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT [1]), which
explicitly addresses both in two c
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Gannon Dick wrote:
> My two cents: Isn't Linked Data supererogatory in any Jurisdiction ?
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/supererogation/
"(Linked Data) raises interesting problems both on the meta-ethical
level of deontic logic and on the normative level of
t: Re: Licensing advice
My two cents: In many legal regimes it has been successfully argued
that "code is speech." The imperative vs declarative distinction is
likely to fail; if the code conveys "information" intended to control
the operation of another system, it can be ar
On 7/25/13 9:03 AM, John Erickson wrote:
My two cents: In many legal regimes it has been successfully argued
that "code is speech." The imperative vs declarative distinction is
likely to fail; if the code conveys "information" intended to control
the operation of another system, it can be argued
My two cents: In many legal regimes it has been successfully argued
that "code is speech." The imperative vs declarative distinction is
likely to fail; if the code conveys "information" intended to control
the operation of another system, it can be argued that it is a form of
speech (and not merely
Oh! I didn't know... but if you can insert a "SQL" expression then R2RML
is certainly imperative.
Now I am very curious about the "Prolog" question, too, and I would like
to hear more opinions.
To foster the discussion, I have posted about "RDF Mappings and
Licenses" here: http://licensius.c
Interesting distinction, but I'm not sure I buy it.
Does that mean software licenses don't apply to PROLOG code?
I can actually make R2RML mappings more imperative than PROLOG cuts by
using control flow features of SQL.
Barry
On 25/07/13 12:04, Víctor Rodríguez Doncel wrote:
Dear Roberto,
Dear Roberto, all
Well, I have not heard about any case in a trial court about this and
the legal texts seem somewhat ambiguous. Also, I have not heard other
qualified opinions on this particular regard. So, this can be matter for
a friendly discussion.
But I still lean towards *not* conside
Dear Víctor, Tom, all,
Maybe I've missed something but if what is going to be licensed are R2RML
mappings, for me this is code.
As Víctor quoted, a computer program is (WIPO): "a set of instructions, which
controls the operations of a computer in order to enable it to perform a
specific task".
T
Well, ODC data licenses include *both* copyrights and database rights.
So you dont give up your claims for having made a creative work...
Víctor
El 24/07/2013 10:38, Tom Heath escribió:
Just seen this thread, apols for the slow response Barry...
Of course IANAL and all that, but I disagree wi
Just seen this thread, apols for the slow response Barry...
Of course IANAL and all that, but I disagree with Victor's conclusion.
I would argue that the individual mappings are creative works (as you
say), and therefore a CC license would apply (better still, why not
apply a public domain waiver
Hi Barry
As Boris mentioned, this is an ongoing work.
Currently we have the mappings as ttl files in our server, and we are
thinking to store them in a triplestore (since R2RML mappings are in RDF).
So, we'd be more than happy to pull your mappings to our repository.
Thanks!
Freddy
On Fri, Jul
Barry,
My opinion is the following:
1. *Code license NO*. A computer program is (WIPO): "/a set of
instructions, which controls the operations of a computer in order to
enable it to perform a specific task/"
2. I*ntellectual Property. I'd say no in this case*. Some databases are
protected by
Incidentally, to clarify, I meant to ask a more fundamental question
about mappings: are these creative works, deserving themselves of a CC
license, or executable code, deserving of a code license?
Whichever way, I'd like to make them as encumbered as possible.
Barry
On 12/07/13 13:20, Bar
On 12/07/13 18:08, Barry Norton wrote:
On 12/07/13 18:02, Víctor Rodríguez Doncel wrote:
[...]
So, if you have created a dataset, this time in RDF, containing the
"user ratings" (supplementary data) in MusicBrainz, you have little
choice: CC-BY-NC-SA. Yet DBpedia requires CC-BY-SA, so in theo
On 12/07/13 18:02, Víctor Rodríguez Doncel wrote:
Hi Barry,
First, the obvious: the MusicBrainz core data is in the Public Domain,
and you can freely publish its transformation as you like, but the
MusicBrainz supplementary data is CC-BY-NC-SA and its transformations
must be shared "alike".
Hi Barry,
First, the obvious: the MusicBrainz core data is in the Public Domain,
and you can freely publish its transformation as you like, but the
MusicBrainz supplementary data is CC-BY-NC-SA and its transformations
must be shared "alike".
So, if you have created a dataset, this time in RD
Boris, that's really interesting, I wasn't aware.
Under mappings, though, I just see directory listings and no version
control - if these remain under git(hub) would you poll them?
Cheers,
Barry
On 12/07/13 13:35, Boris Villazon-Terrazas wrote:
Hi Barry
This is not fully related with you
Hi Barry
This is not fully related with your question. But, within mappingpedia
initiative [1] we are collecting RDB2RDF mappings. So, your mappings
would be useful for us.
We are developing a vocab for describing the mappings, and we will
include the licence information.
Boris
[1] http:/
I'd like to publicly release R2RML mappings for the MusicBrainz dataset.
DBpedia has shown interest in including the subset that can be used to
create a linkset.
Any idea what (kind of) licence could/should apply? (To be clear, to the
mappings, as opposed to the dataset)
I'd also like to a
22 matches
Mail list logo
