It is probably better to apply the ODbL to the individual datasets where possible.
Rufus On 29 June 2011 13:04, Jo Walsh <[email protected]> wrote: > Damian thinks that ODbL should apply to the dataset as a whole, so applying > it to collections of datasets is inappropriate - see below. > > Is there prior art / consensus that applying it to chunks of the db at a > time is a bad idea? > phone: +441316502973 > > > Damian Steer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> [sorry, forgot to Cc you when I replied] On 29 Jun 2011, at 10:56, Jo >> Walsh wrote: > Just after the New Year we had a chat about historic >> place-name modelling and vocabularies. I'm now in >> last-day-of-frotting-the-demo mode and would benefit from instruction on >> what i'm now doing wrong :) > > >> http://geoxwalk-at.edina.ac.uk/chalice/place/linked/cheshire/prestbury/bosley/bosley/boselega >> > > (and the turtle output is also included at the bottom here) > > My main >> problem is the difference between URI-for-object and URI-for-document. There >> is a license statement at the bottom - ODbL, yay! - > but it currently is >> attached to the URI used to identify the *place* - which is not >> differentiated from the document itself. Hi Jo, This may either beg the >> question or simplify things ;-) ODbL covers databases not individual or >> small collections of facts. I'd expect the licence to apply to the larger >> dataset this page is part of. You could try something like: <> >> void:inDataset <...dataset id...> . <...dataset id...> a void:Dataset ; >> dc:license <http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/> . Damian > > _______________________________________________ > odc-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss > > -- Co-Founder, Open Knowledge Foundation Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age http://www.okfn.org/ - http://blog.okfn.org/ _______________________________________________ odc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss
