FWIW ... this issue is more subtle than first appears. A license (metadata) is often treated as a matter of 'style', contrary to a first principle of XML. Don't let this happen to your Ontology ... you've been warned.
e.g. http://www.rustprivacy.org/cc0.pdf --- On Tue, 7/19/11, Alan Ruttenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Alan Ruttenberg <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Ontology license info > To: "valentina presutti" <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2011, 8:42 AM > How about usung dc:license as an > ontology annotation. That's what > we've done, using cc-by or cc0 as the license. > > -Alan > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2011, valentina presutti <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > > > I could not find any suggestion of good practices for > attaching a license to an ontology. > > Of course one can report it on its documentation (for > humans), but I was wondering if there is any diffuse > practice for embedding this info in the ontology as a > property value (for machine readability). > > > > Any suggestion? > > > > Thanks for the help > > Val > > > >
