Sounds good. How do we do the update. Tim managed the errata on github... Or is there a separate mechanism
Paul > On Mar 21, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, in JSON-LD contexts this should always work: > > { "http://purl.org/dc/terms/license";, { "@id": > "https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document"; > }, > "@context": { "whatever-it": "already-have" } > } > > The RDF statement of a JSON-LD context document are ignored by consumers. > > I would include also: > > "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/rights": "(c) W3C blabla" > > > As we found in JSON-LD Framing you can't do that, as it would impose > the dcterms:license property on the frame. So here I think using the > key "__header" instead: > > { "__header": { "http://purl.org/dc/terms/license";, { "@id": > "https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document"; > } > }, > "the-actual": "frame" > } > > > >> On 19 March 2016 at 08:33, Ivan Herman <[email protected]> wrote: >> The only technical problem is that we cannot put it into JSON-LD files, >> simply because there is no possibility to add comments to JSON :-( >> >> I guess what this means is that we should add a triple to the RDF namespace >> documents. A simple: >> >> <URI_OF_NAMESPACE> <http://purl.org/dc/terms/license> >> <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document> >> >> should suffice. >> >> Ivan >> >> >>> On 18 Mar 2016, at 20:21, Ivan Herman <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I think we should, yes. >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> --- >>> Ivan Herman >>> Tel:+31 641044153 >>> http://www.ivan-herman.net >>> >>> (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...) >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 18 Mar 2016, at 19:51, Sandro Hawke <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> The conclusion from the other thread, with Eric, is clearly the Software >>>> license. Should we go edit the the ontologies to say this? >>>> >>>> -- Sandro >>>> >>>>> On 03/18/2016 11:29 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: >>>>> Hi, in Apache Taverna we try to use PROV, and part of that is to embed >>>>> https://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o.ttl >>>>> in our source code to avoid external dependencies. >>>>> >>>>> As we discuss in >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-927 >>>>> .. now we are not sure if we can do this, as it is unclear what is the >>>>> license of the PROV ontologies and schemas. >>>>> >>>>> They do not have any <!-- style --> headers, and there is no >>>>> dcterms:license annotatoin. >>>>> >>>>> However >>>>> >>>>> https://www.w3.org/ns/prov/ >>>>> and >>>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/ >>>>> >>>>> says: >>>>> >>>>>> Copyright © 2011-2013 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio, Beihang), All Rights >>>>>> Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply. >>>>> The Document Use Rules >>>>> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/doc-license >>>>> are controversial for Apache source code as it forbids modifications: >>>>> >>>>>> No right to create modifications or derivatives of W3C documents is >>>>>> granted pursuant to this license, except as follows: To facilitate >>>>>> implementation of the technical specifications set forth in this >>>>>> document, anyone may prepare and distribute derivative works and >>>>>> portions of this document in software, in supporting materials >>>>>> accompanying software, and in documentation of software, PROVIDED that >>>>>> all such works include the notice below. HOWEVER, the publication of >>>>>> derivative works of this document for use as a technical specification >>>>>> is expressly prohibited. >>>>> ..and hence we can't include them in source code >>>>> repositories/releases, as it would be incompatible with the Apache >>>>> License. >>>>> >>>>> (including in binaries are OK, but then we have to fetch them during >>>>> build - which risks hitting the infamous w3.org schema 'tar pit') >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> However the Document Use rules also says: >>>>> >>>>>> In addition, "Code Components" —Web IDL in sections clearly marked as >>>>>> Web IDL; and W3C-defined markup (HTML, CSS, etc.) and computer >>>>>> programming language code clearly marked as code examples— are licensed >>>>>> under the W3C Software License. >>>>> ( The W3C Software License is permissive and would be OK to include in >>>>> source code. >>>>> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document ) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This list does not include schemas, ontologies or JSON-LD contextx - >>>>> so it is unclear if these count as "Code Components" or as >>>>> "Documents". Do we then have to assume that if they don't have a >>>>> header or license annotation, then they are under the Documentation >>>>> License? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> BTW - here's an example of a schema with the software licence header, >>>>> which means we can include it in source code: >>>>> >>>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/xmldsig-core-schema.xsd >>>>> >>>>> (once you get it out of the w3.org tar pit) >>>>> >>>>> <!-- Schema for XML Signatures >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig# >>>>> $Revision: 1.1 $ on $Date: 2002/02/08 20:32:26 $ by $Author: reagle $ >>>>> >>>>> Copyright 2001 The Internet Society and W3C (Massachusetts Institute >>>>> of Technology, Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en >>>>> Automatique, Keio University). All Rights Reserved. >>>>> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ >>>>> >>>>> This document is governed by the W3C Software License [1] as described >>>>> in the FAQ [2]. >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software-19980720 >>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ-20000620.html#DTD >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Would it be possible for other schemas and ontologies, particularly >>>>> under /ns/ to get a similar clarifying license header? Or at least >>>>> this to be a requirement for any future specifications? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Another question is what counts as a "modification" - is this any >>>>> derived work? E.g. changing a Turtle file to JSON-LD? Or generating >>>>> Java class files with JAXB from an XSD? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We're considering a legal workaround by packaging various w3c schemas >>>>> as Maven artifacts, from Github distributed to Maven Central as JAR >>>>> "binaries" - but it is even unclear if this would count as a >>>>> "modification". >>>>> >>>>> (We have a similar issue with OASIS schemas) >> >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C >> Digital Publishing Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > > -- > Stian Soiland-Reyes, eScience Lab > School of Computer Science > The University of Manchester > http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/ http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 >
