Hi,
I am a PhD student at the University of Leipzig working with the AKSW group
[1] and as part of my project [2], we converted the WHO-GHO dataset to RDF.
To answer the question about the licensing/copyright issue, according to
WHO, if extracts from WHO website of publication are used for resear
Hi Egon,
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> Hej Amrapali,
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Amrapali J Zaveri
> wrote:
> > To answer the question about the licensing/copyright issue, according to
> > WHO, if extracts from WHO website of publication are used for research
Hej Amrapali,
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Amrapali J Zaveri
wrote:
> To answer the question about the licensing/copyright issue, according to
> WHO, if extracts from WHO website of publication are used for research,
> private study or in a noncommercial document with limited circulation (such
Hi Matthias,
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Matthias Samwald wrote:
> I'm not sure if clear-cut rules for LODD have been defined. However, many
> people interested/involved in LODD come from commercially oriented companies
> (mostly pharmaceutical companies). Therefore it certainly IS a reason
Five databases have a non-commercial clause involved, making it Open
according to the LODD definitions (correct?), but not Open following
the OFKN's standards. The original plan was to set up an informative
package of information explaining why the NC clause causes problems,
but we did not get aro
Hi LODD wg members,
Jenny Molloy sent around the results of the hack session with the
science working group of the Open Knowledge Foundation, looking at the
12 data sets listed in the best practices paper.
Of these two were clearly Open (ChEMBL, TCM-GenEdit), and one clearly
not Open (UMLS). Dise
