John McClure wrote:
Of course, thanks for the pointer. Yes, I'd agree that 19788's ontology be
closely reviewed for inclusion. 19788:2 standardizes the Dublin Core
properties, the same I recommend for [[wikidata]] provenance data, the same
slated for the [[wikidata]] ontology. But more to
Hi,
1c. You're arguing over CHF 200 -- which extraordinarily-cheaply and
fundamentally PROTECTS the MWF from copyright infringement suits? Can
the SNAK architecture provide that reassurance to the MWF community?
imho there are some problems with this argumentation:
First i don't really know
Hi Friedrich - IAANAA (I also am not an attorney)! and likely know
no more than yourself about the issues.
1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic_Map [3]s gives links to iso/iec 13250
2. The 'community' includes developers who contractually/implicitly
guarantee the provenance of the
Hi JMC,
thank you for the explanations, I understand quite better now.
Re 1, I regard it as pretty obvious. But here's the relevant sentence taken
fromt he Wikimedia values: We believe that this mission requires thriving
open formats and open standards on the web to allow the creation of content
I was silent on this thread mostly due to the following two points:
1. as mentioned several times, a standard for us to be considered must be
free. Free as in Everyone can get it without having to pay or register for
it. I can give it to anyone legally without any restrictions. Free of
patents.
1. as mentioned several times, a standard for us to be considered
must be free. Free as in Everyone can get it without having to pay or
register for
it. I can give it to anyone legally without any
restrictions. Free of patents. Free as in W3C.
2. I have taken another
look at your page, and
Hi all!
Am a bit mystified here! about the radio-silence to this
thread or, for that matter, to the [[meta:wikitopics]] [1] document
itself.
From wikipedia: [2]
REINVENTING THE SQUARE WHEEL is the
practice of unnecessarily engineering artifacts that provide
functionality already provided
