2011/6/24 Jeremy Ottevanger <[log in to unmask]>:
> I think that anything that distinguishes between commercial and non-commercial use cannot be considered Linked OPEN Data. It may be justifiable in its own terms, but it doesn't fit that definition and it threatens to pollute the pool of real LOD if it becomes mixed in.
I have Friday brain, can you tease this out a little more? i.e. is it
that data that's under a non-commercial licence isn't capital-O Open?
As a non-commercial developer who uses any data I can get my hands on,
an NC (non-commercial) licence isn't a problem for me.
> When a data source might contain data with a mixture of licences, so you have to check each piece of data, this is pretty onerous and will make developers think twice about following any links to that resource
But under the licence proposed they might have to anyway in order to
provide proper attribution? [I'm not sure if the proposed star system
addresses whether attribution is to the source institute or the
repository/aggregator - something to check.]
Possibly getting off topic, but in the discussions around 'messy' data
there seemed to be a consensus that reasoning/inference was dead (or
at least in a coma) - does that have an impact? (Live notes from that
session at http://bit.ly/mJAQnX).
Cheers, Mia
****************************************************************
website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
[un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************
|