On 28/11/12 17:58, Luca Martinelli wrote:
> I share Denny's worries.
>
> If we adopt ODBL, all WMF projects *will have to* add a note about
> structured data taken from Wikidata (like "data are released in ODBL"
> or similar), or they should be bi-licensed (CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported +
> ODBL what.ever
Denny Vrandečić schrieb am 28.11.2012 17:23:
Can you give me a reference for the statement that CCBYSA and ODBL are
compatible? I understand that they have certain similarities, but I want
to understand if I can take ODBL content and relicense it under CCBYSA
and the other way around.
Probably
2012/11/28 Denny Vrandečić :
> So since ODBL and CCBYSA are not compatible, why would it be less of a
> source of possible conflicts and infringements of Wikipedia's content
> license to use ODBL instead of CC0?
I share Denny's worries.
If we adopt ODBL, all WMF projects *will have to* add a note
So since ODBL and CCBYSA are not compatible, why would it be less of a
source of possible conflicts and infringements of Wikipedia's content
license to use ODBL instead of CC0?
2012/11/28 Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou
> No you cannot: CC-BY-SA is not intended for data, so regarding data
> you should
No you cannot: CC-BY-SA is not intended for data, so regarding data
you should never use any CC licence (pre-version 4.0, v4 will address
database rights) other than CC0. That's why if you want BY-SA
conditions, the good choice is ODbL which was created by the Open
Knowledge Foundation exactly for
Can you give me a reference for the statement that CCBYSA and ODBL are
compatible? I understand that they have certain similarities, but I want to
understand if I can take ODBL content and relicense it under CCBYSA and the
other way around.
Or else what do you mean with "compatible"?
2012/11/28
I guess things would be far more easier if WikiData would choose a
CCBYSA-compatible database license like ODbL. I can only repeat myself,
that the OpenStreetMap community went through a similar discussion and
decided to respect database rights and keep their data as clean as
possible. Because
Am 28.11.2012 14:43, schrieb Marco Fleckinger:
One possible solution I could imagine is to interwiki-links right under
the headlines. This would be quite similar as section references are
handled in several Bibles as well.
Cheers,
Marco
On 28/11/12 12:26, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
Let us see, onc
But we can have claims on properties. We do have the facilities to enable
this. Or am I wrong?
2012/11/16 Jeroen De Dauw
> Hey,
>
> (Mail mainly directed at Denny)
>
> I am wondering to what extend we want to be able to specify the "data
> type" of a property on wiki. Right now one can only pro
One possible solution I could imagine is to interwiki-links right under
the headlines. This would be quite similar as section references are
handled in several Bibles as well.
Cheers,
Marco
On 28/11/12 12:26, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
Let us see, once Wikidata has replaced most of the local lang
Thanks, Snaevar. I closed bug 38542 as resolved, and I removed 41345 as
being a dependency.
2012/11/27 Snaevar
> I suppose Wikidata will be enabled on the Wikipedias when the dependancies
> of bug 38975 [1] are fixed and the Wikibase Client & Wikibase Lib
> extensions are installed on the wik
Let us see, once Wikidata has replaced most of the local language links,
what is left and how the world looks then. This would be then the
appropriate moment to consider how to further extend the system. Right now
we would be building on too many assumptions that we cannot validate for a
rather sma
There is currently no plan from our side to move the project information
from Meta to Wikidata. It would be quite a bit of work with no clear
benefit.
Whether the status should be shown on the Wikidata home page should be
discussed on the talk page of the Wikidata homepage, that's nothing that we
On 28.11.2012 09:47, Lukas Benedix wrote:
> Is there any reason not to have links from wikidata/FooBar to
> en.wiki/FooBar and de.wiki/Foo#Bar? It would be a directed edge, but is
> that a problem?
Hm... yes, that's a problem. We are relying in multiple places o nthe assumption
that there is only
2012/11/27 Daniel Kinzler
> Note
> however that the English article can only have one outgoing interlanguage
> link
> to german, the others are ignored (this was changed in core a few weeks
> ago,
> unrelated to wikidata).
>
> So that's why my user page was spoiled! I used more English iws to tr
Denny,
thanks for info... Lydia, what about moving and centralizing all wikidata
info from Meta to Wikidata.org? And what about having a clear project
status right on the homepage of Wikidata.org?
J.
2012/11/27 Denny Vrandečić
> As said, this is correct with regard to deployment. We will not,
Is there any reason not to have links from wikidata/FooBar to
en.wiki/FooBar and de.wiki/Foo#Bar? It would be a directed edge, but is
that a problem?
I think there are a lot of articles especially in the german wikipedia
where you don't have FooBar but Foo#Bar.
LB
> On 27.11.2012 19:30, Marco Fl
17 matches
Mail list logo
