I'll work the update via the change process that I've done before. Tim
Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 21, 2016, at 12:44, Paul Groth <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sounds good. How do we do the update. > > Tim managed the errata on github... Or is there a separate mechanism > > Paul > >> On Mar 21, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Yes, in JSON-LD contexts this should always work: >> >> { "http://purl.org/dc/terms/license";, { "@id": >> "https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document"; >> }, >> "@context": { "whatever-it": "already-have" } >> } >> >> The RDF statement of a JSON-LD context document are ignored by consumers. >> >> I would include also: >> >> "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/rights": "(c) W3C blabla" >> >> >> As we found in JSON-LD Framing you can't do that, as it would impose >> the dcterms:license property on the frame. So here I think using the >> key "__header" instead: >> >> { "__header": { "http://purl.org/dc/terms/license";, { "@id": >> "https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document"; >> } >> }, >> "the-actual": "frame" >> } >> >> >> >>> On 19 March 2016 at 08:33, Ivan Herman <[email protected]> wrote: >>> The only technical problem is that we cannot put it into JSON-LD files, >>> simply because there is no possibility to add comments to JSON :-( >>> >>> I guess what this means is that we should add a triple to the RDF namespace >>> documents. A simple: >>> >>> <URI_OF_NAMESPACE> <http://purl.org/dc/terms/license> >>> <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document> >>> >>> should suffice. >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> >>>> On 18 Mar 2016, at 20:21, Ivan Herman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I think we should, yes. >>>> >>>> Ivan >>>> >>>> --- >>>> Ivan Herman >>>> Tel:+31 641044153 >>>> http://www.ivan-herman.net >>>> >>>> (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 18 Mar 2016, at 19:51, Sandro Hawke <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The conclusion from the other thread, with Eric, is clearly the Software >>>>> license. Should we go edit the the ontologies to say this? >>>>> >>>>> -- Sandro >>>>> >>>>>> On 03/18/2016 11:29 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: >>>>>> Hi, in Apache Taverna we try to use PROV, and part of that is to embed >>>>>> https://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o.ttl >>>>>> in our source code to avoid external dependencies. >>>>>> >>>>>> As we discuss in >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-927 >>>>>> .. now we are not sure if we can do this, as it is unclear what is the >>>>>> license of the PROV ontologies and schemas. >>>>>> >>>>>> They do not have any <!-- style --> headers, and there is no >>>>>> dcterms:license annotatoin. >>>>>> >>>>>> However >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.w3.org/ns/prov/ >>>>>> and >>>>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/ >>>>>> >>>>>> says: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Copyright © 2011-2013 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio, Beihang), All Rights >>>>>>> Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply. >>>>>> The Document Use Rules >>>>>> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/doc-license >>>>>> are controversial for Apache source code as it forbids modifications: >>>>>> >>>>>>> No right to create modifications or derivatives of W3C documents is >>>>>>> granted pursuant to this license, except as follows: To facilitate >>>>>>> implementation of the technical specifications set forth in this >>>>>>> document, anyone may prepare and distribute derivative works and >>>>>>> portions of this document in software, in supporting materials >>>>>>> accompanying software, and in documentation of software, PROVIDED that >>>>>>> all such works include the notice below. HOWEVER, the publication of >>>>>>> derivative works of this document for use as a technical specification >>>>>>> is expressly prohibited. >>>>>> ..and hence we can't include them in source code >>>>>> repositories/releases, as it would be incompatible with the Apache >>>>>> License. >>>>>> >>>>>> (including in binaries are OK, but then we have to fetch them during >>>>>> build - which risks hitting the infamous w3.org schema 'tar pit') >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> However the Document Use rules also says: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In addition, "Code Components" —Web IDL in sections clearly marked as >>>>>>> Web IDL; and W3C-defined markup (HTML, CSS, etc.) and computer >>>>>>> programming language code clearly marked as code examples— are licensed >>>>>>> under the W3C Software License. >>>>>> ( The W3C Software License is permissive and would be OK to include in >>>>>> source code. >>>>>> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document >>>>>> ) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This list does not include schemas, ontologies or JSON-LD contextx - >>>>>> so it is unclear if these count as "Code Components" or as >>>>>> "Documents". Do we then have to assume that if they don't have a >>>>>> header or license annotation, then they are under the Documentation >>>>>> License? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW - here's an example of a schema with the software licence header, >>>>>> which means we can include it in source code: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/xmldsig-core-schema.xsd >>>>>> >>>>>> (once you get it out of the w3.org tar pit) >>>>>> >>>>>> <!-- Schema for XML Signatures >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig# >>>>>> $Revision: 1.1 $ on $Date: 2002/02/08 20:32:26 $ by $Author: reagle $ >>>>>> >>>>>> Copyright 2001 The Internet Society and W3C (Massachusetts Institute >>>>>> of Technology, Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en >>>>>> Automatique, Keio University). All Rights Reserved. >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ >>>>>> >>>>>> This document is governed by the W3C Software License [1] as described >>>>>> in the FAQ [2]. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software-19980720 >>>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ-20000620.html#DTD >>>>>> --> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Would it be possible for other schemas and ontologies, particularly >>>>>> under /ns/ to get a similar clarifying license header? Or at least >>>>>> this to be a requirement for any future specifications? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Another question is what counts as a "modification" - is this any >>>>>> derived work? E.g. changing a Turtle file to JSON-LD? Or generating >>>>>> Java class files with JAXB from an XSD? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We're considering a legal workaround by packaging various w3c schemas >>>>>> as Maven artifacts, from Github distributed to Maven Central as JAR >>>>>> "binaries" - but it is even unclear if this would count as a >>>>>> "modification". >>>>>> >>>>>> (We have a similar issue with OASIS schemas) >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>> Digital Publishing Lead >>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >> >> >> >> -- >> Stian Soiland-Reyes, eScience Lab >> School of Computer Science >> The University of Manchester >> http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/ http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 >
