[Crm-sig] Licensing

Leif Isaksen leifuss at googlemail.com
Sat Oct 25 16:12:07 EEST 2008

Maybe I'm missing something but this doesn't entirely make sense to me.

In order to link data in the Semantic Web sense the encoded versions
(or at least the OWL and RDFS versions) should be available at a fixed
domain and the URIs of which they are composed must also be fixed.
That way every CRM concept has one unique location on the internet and
all references should refer to it. For that reason, I don't see how
(or why) anyone would infringe copyright on it. Triples either refer
to the canonical URI for, e.g. E55 or they don't. If they don't then
they are not referencing the CIDOC CRM anymore. By the same token,
extensions can create new concepts (perhaps using their own domain
space) but they still have to refer back to the original URIs if they
are to extend the CIDOC CRM.

There seem to be some grey areas around taxonomies like the Getty
Thesauri (which are licensed). I know a SKOS (i.e. RDF-based) version
has been created, but it's toxic for externals because no-one is sure
whether they could link to the URIs or not without infringing
copyright. That seems unlikely to me, but it would possibly violate
the contractual agreement of the (third-party) organisation that did
it which wouldn't help matters.

In any case, Getty might meaningfully be called data, whereas the
CIDOC CRM is a conceptual structure: it is really only useful if I
make it clear that I'm using the CIDOC CRM in the first place (E55
doesn't mean anything at all otherwise). Attribution is therefore
ensured. Likewise, the encoded version is simply an address on on the
internet and the RDFS/OWL descriptions freely available so there's no
way for third parties to restrict use. Seeing as those are the only
two things that CC-BY guarantees it would seem to be unnecessary.

Sorry for the ramble - please do correct me if I've got the wrong end
of something here.



Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:37:33 +0200
From: Maximilian Schich <maximilian at schich.info>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Licensing [was Re:  Licensisng]
To: martin <martin at ics.forth.gr>
Cc: crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
Message-ID: <4901975D.8090602 at schich.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

The CC web page is great. It is literally six clicks to the license.
You can license any document by linking it to the appropriate cc-license.
As far as I remember the wizard also provides you with some rdf snippet
which can be interated into html to allow for crawling the use of the
particular document (like in a citation index).
There is only one important question: Which jurisdiction to choose.
However, they have an initiative to make the core internationally
applicable (which should definitely apply for cc-by).

Just follow 'License your work' on http://creativecommons.org/
Probably it is also interesting to look into the science-commons
initiative on the same web page: http://sciencecommons.org/

By the way, I would also vote for cc-by.

Best wishes,

Dr. des. Maximilian Schich M.A.
adr.: Westendstrasse 80 | D-80339 M?nchen | Germany
tel.: +49-179-6678041 | skype: maximilian.schich
mail: maximilian at schich.info | home: www.schich.info

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message including attachments, if
any, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.

martin schrieb:
> Hohmann, Georg wrote:
>> Hi,
>>> All rights reserved, then?
>> I think this is an interesting point.
>>> Unlike the BIBO and FRBR
>>> ontologies which have CC-BY licenses?
>> In my opinion CC-BY would be a good choice for licencing the definition document. "Creative Commons" was initiated by Lawrence Lessig, and is commonly used in several domains. With this licence everybody is allowed to copy, distribute and to "remix" the work, but there has to be always a reference to the original creators and the licence agreement.
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
>> There are several other, more restricted versions of the Creative Commons Licence which would be worth a look. Maybe to restrict the use of the text for commercial purposes would be a point, which could be achieved using the cc-by-nc-licence.
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
>> I guess therefore a clarification with ISO would be needed about possible conflicts with the selling of the text as an iso-document.
>> Well, maybe this is worth a discussion - without hurry.
>> Best,
>> Georg Hohmann
> Yes, a "creative commons" license for the encoded forms, the OWL, KIF, RDFS or whatever encodings of the CRM makes absolutely
> sense to formalize their use.
> I am not sure, if this is needed for the textual definitions. These cannot be reused in the way the encoded forms are encouraged to.
> They play the role of a community draft for ISO. As such, they are not under ISO copyright, but under CIDOC copyright.
> What is formally used for the CC license? Any expert out here to advice us?
> Martin


Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list