Adding a Right Statement to data published via WordLift #105

Open
cyberandy opened this Issue Sep 22, 2015 · 18 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@cyberandy
Member

cyberandy commented Sep 22, 2015

As data published to the web should always be accompanied by machine-readable metadata that describes the dataset, its means of creation and, importantly, a statement of the rights that relate to potential re-use of the data. This option should be given to editors in the WordLift settings. An initial implementation could include:

  • dataset title (presumably the name of the website)
  • dataset rights
  • dataset license

More info for the implementation can be found here: https://theodi.org/guides/publishers-guide-to-the-open-data-rights-statement-vocabulary.

@cyberandy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cyberandy

cyberandy Jan 7, 2016

Member

It is also extremely important to clear out any thoughts on the fact that the data produced with WordLift belongs to the user and this is why he/she pays a recurring fee.

Member

cyberandy commented Jan 7, 2016

It is also extremely important to clear out any thoughts on the fact that the data produced with WordLift belongs to the user and this is why he/she pays a recurring fee.

@Byrlyne

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Byrlyne

Byrlyne Jan 7, 2016

I agree with cyberandy. I know I am jumping in here without having much background on WordLift, but as a former attorney, I believe whatever boilerplate language you use to convey this message (ownership rights and copyright information) must be agreed to at the time your product/service is purchased, is clearly identifiable at the point of service, AND repeated in each and every piece of correspondence you send out. This way there is no gray area, or room for a user to claim you failed to make this clear before purchase or during use, in order to avoid lawsuits. This is not one of those situations where you can bury this information in convoluted legal-ease.

Byrlyne commented Jan 7, 2016

I agree with cyberandy. I know I am jumping in here without having much background on WordLift, but as a former attorney, I believe whatever boilerplate language you use to convey this message (ownership rights and copyright information) must be agreed to at the time your product/service is purchased, is clearly identifiable at the point of service, AND repeated in each and every piece of correspondence you send out. This way there is no gray area, or room for a user to claim you failed to make this clear before purchase or during use, in order to avoid lawsuits. This is not one of those situations where you can bury this information in convoluted legal-ease.

@cyberandy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cyberandy

cyberandy Jan 7, 2016

Member

@Byrlyne thanks for your input here. WordLift (that you can test with any WordPress website as beta tester) is currently under development and aims at providing anyone with the possibility to create his/her own knowledge graph. It is extremely important that ownership rights and usage rights are clear regardless of the fact that the data will move back and forth from the user's local site to the cloud. Of course as we're approaching the commercialization these issues become more and more important.

Member

cyberandy commented Jan 7, 2016

@Byrlyne thanks for your input here. WordLift (that you can test with any WordPress website as beta tester) is currently under development and aims at providing anyone with the possibility to create his/her own knowledge graph. It is extremely important that ownership rights and usage rights are clear regardless of the fact that the data will move back and forth from the user's local site to the cloud. Of course as we're approaching the commercialization these issues become more and more important.

@cyberandy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cyberandy

cyberandy Jan 11, 2016

Member

Adding a single statement on the whole dataset like:

:example2
    a dcat:Dataset ;
    dct:title "Open Products" ;
    dct:rights :example2-rights-statement;
    dct:license <http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/>.

Would work. These options shall be configured from the WordLift > Settings Tab.

Member

cyberandy commented Jan 11, 2016

Adding a single statement on the whole dataset like:

:example2
    a dcat:Dataset ;
    dct:title "Open Products" ;
    dct:rights :example2-rights-statement;
    dct:license <http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/>.

Would work. These options shall be configured from the WordLift > Settings Tab.

@mcolacino mcolacino modified the milestones: 3.6, 3.5 Feb 16, 2016

@mcolacino

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mcolacino

mcolacino Mar 21, 2016

Contributor

@cyberandy @ziodave which kind of alternative we want to provide as licences
Is it ok to refer to what suggested here for homogeneous DB? http://opendatacommons.org/faq/licenses/#Why_Do_You_Distinguish_Between_the_8220Database8221_and_its_8220Contents8221
I think we should provide a collection of licenses to the user instead of ask to provide a license uri

Contributor

mcolacino commented Mar 21, 2016

@cyberandy @ziodave which kind of alternative we want to provide as licences
Is it ok to refer to what suggested here for homogeneous DB? http://opendatacommons.org/faq/licenses/#Why_Do_You_Distinguish_Between_the_8220Database8221_and_its_8220Contents8221
I think we should provide a collection of licenses to the user instead of ask to provide a license uri

@ziodave

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ziodave

ziodave Mar 22, 2016

Member

I think the end-user should be able to select how s/he would like to license her/his own contents.

I believe Creative Commons is more understandable and appropriate (than ODbl) since the end user is licensing contents, this wizard gives an overview of the available choices: https://creativecommons.org/choose/

The RDFa example in the above page shows the actual vocabulary to use when describing the license, which is also described here:

Finally I don't think we should use dcat:Dataset which pertains to data catalogs (a direct subclass of dcmitype:Dataset, "examples include lists, tables, and databases. A dataset may be useful for direct machine processing").

We can instead use http://schema.org/WebSite or http://schema.org/Blog (or the more generic http://schema.org/CreativeWork) to define the whole dataset (these classes have a schema:license property). http://schema.org/BlogPosting(s) can be related to http://schema.org/CreativeWork subclasses using the schema:isPartOf property.

Member

ziodave commented Mar 22, 2016

I think the end-user should be able to select how s/he would like to license her/his own contents.

I believe Creative Commons is more understandable and appropriate (than ODbl) since the end user is licensing contents, this wizard gives an overview of the available choices: https://creativecommons.org/choose/

The RDFa example in the above page shows the actual vocabulary to use when describing the license, which is also described here:

Finally I don't think we should use dcat:Dataset which pertains to data catalogs (a direct subclass of dcmitype:Dataset, "examples include lists, tables, and databases. A dataset may be useful for direct machine processing").

We can instead use http://schema.org/WebSite or http://schema.org/Blog (or the more generic http://schema.org/CreativeWork) to define the whole dataset (these classes have a schema:license property). http://schema.org/BlogPosting(s) can be related to http://schema.org/CreativeWork subclasses using the schema:isPartOf property.

@mcolacino

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mcolacino

mcolacino Mar 22, 2016

Contributor

mmm schema:isPartOf does not seems the proper one here ... Look at the property details
schermata 2016-03-22 alle 10 05 47

Contributor

mcolacino commented Mar 22, 2016

mmm schema:isPartOf does not seems the proper one here ... Look at the property details
schermata 2016-03-22 alle 10 05 47

@ziodave

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ziodave

ziodave Mar 22, 2016

Member

never mind isPartOf: it's not required for the license definition.

Member

ziodave commented Mar 22, 2016

never mind isPartOf: it's not required for the license definition.

@mcolacino

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mcolacino

mcolacino Mar 22, 2016

Contributor

So is it ok to create on RL side a resource like:

http://data.wordlift.it/wl023/ a schema:WebSite
http://data.wordlift.it/wl023/ schema:license <license_uri>
http://data.wordlift.it/wl023/ schema:name <blog_name>@it
http://data.wordlift.it/wl023/ schema:url <blog_url>

And adding in WL setting a text input to specify the license_uri?

Contributor

mcolacino commented Mar 22, 2016

So is it ok to create on RL side a resource like:

http://data.wordlift.it/wl023/ a schema:WebSite
http://data.wordlift.it/wl023/ schema:license <license_uri>
http://data.wordlift.it/wl023/ schema:name <blog_name>@it
http://data.wordlift.it/wl023/ schema:url <blog_url>

And adding in WL setting a text input to specify the license_uri?

@ziodave

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ziodave

ziodave Mar 22, 2016

Member

We should create a URI for the website, maybe http://data.wordlift.it/wl023/root or /website or /site.

Maybe we can provide the user with a SELECT to choose one of the CC licenses or "other...". I think it's enough to begin with.

Later we could expand and provide more licensing information.

Member

ziodave commented Mar 22, 2016

We should create a URI for the website, maybe http://data.wordlift.it/wl023/root or /website or /site.

Maybe we can provide the user with a SELECT to choose one of the CC licenses or "other...". I think it's enough to begin with.

Later we could expand and provide more licensing information.

@cyberandy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cyberandy

cyberandy Mar 22, 2016

Member

I would keep a clear distinction between:

  1. licensing the contents of your site (this is none of WordLift business)
  2. licensing the metadata describing the contents of your site along with the custom vocabulary (this is the WordLift feature we need)

Let's take as example BBC Things - the goal here for them is to open (some of) BBC's tagging data to the public and has nothing to do with the licensing of their online contents (these are, in BBC case, fully copyrighted). The knowledge graph published by WordLift for each user is similar to BBC Things.

WordLift licensing - following the same analogy - shall be applied to the metadata published on data.wordlift.it (or on their own custom URL) but should not be applied to the entire website.

Member

cyberandy commented Mar 22, 2016

I would keep a clear distinction between:

  1. licensing the contents of your site (this is none of WordLift business)
  2. licensing the metadata describing the contents of your site along with the custom vocabulary (this is the WordLift feature we need)

Let's take as example BBC Things - the goal here for them is to open (some of) BBC's tagging data to the public and has nothing to do with the licensing of their online contents (these are, in BBC case, fully copyrighted). The knowledge graph published by WordLift for each user is similar to BBC Things.

WordLift licensing - following the same analogy - shall be applied to the metadata published on data.wordlift.it (or on their own custom URL) but should not be applied to the entire website.

@ziodave

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ziodave

ziodave Mar 22, 2016

Member

The Blog posts are published as Linked Data as well, should we then decide not to publish then?

We can use http://schema.org/CreativeWork instead of /Website or /Blog in case.

Member

ziodave commented Mar 22, 2016

The Blog posts are published as Linked Data as well, should we then decide not to publish then?

We can use http://schema.org/CreativeWork instead of /Website or /Blog in case.

@cyberandy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cyberandy

cyberandy Mar 22, 2016

Member

For the blog post, here is what I can see right now as lod - the example is from v. 3.4 - and this is metadata-only (with the exception of the image).

Generally speaking I would prefer to consider the user's graph created with WL as Dbpedia, Freebase and Wikidata and these are commonly referred as datasets rather than CreativeWork. WDYT?

Member

cyberandy commented Mar 22, 2016

For the blog post, here is what I can see right now as lod - the example is from v. 3.4 - and this is metadata-only (with the exception of the image).

Generally speaking I would prefer to consider the user's graph created with WL as Dbpedia, Freebase and Wikidata and these are commonly referred as datasets rather than CreativeWork. WDYT?

@ziodave

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ziodave

ziodave Mar 22, 2016

Member

dcat:Dataset?

Member

ziodave commented Mar 22, 2016

dcat:Dataset?

@cyberandy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cyberandy

cyberandy Mar 22, 2016

Member

it sounds reasonable to use dcat:Dataset or the schema.org class https://schema.org/Dataset (Thing > CreativeWork > Dataset) that is based upon W3C DCAT and "benefits from collaboration around the DCAT, ADMS and VoID vocabularies". More info on: http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Datasets.

Member

cyberandy commented Mar 22, 2016

it sounds reasonable to use dcat:Dataset or the schema.org class https://schema.org/Dataset (Thing > CreativeWork > Dataset) that is based upon W3C DCAT and "benefits from collaboration around the DCAT, ADMS and VoID vocabularies". More info on: http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Datasets.

@ziodave

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ziodave

ziodave Mar 22, 2016

Member

The thing is that I don't think that /Dataset is an appropriate term.

Member

ziodave commented Mar 22, 2016

The thing is that I don't think that /Dataset is an appropriate term.

@cyberandy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cyberandy

cyberandy Mar 22, 2016

Member
  • BBC Things is a /Dataset
  • Dbpedia is a /Dataset
  • Wikidata is a /Dataset
  • data.wordlift.it/wl023/ is a ...
Member

cyberandy commented Mar 22, 2016

  • BBC Things is a /Dataset
  • Dbpedia is a /Dataset
  • Wikidata is a /Dataset
  • data.wordlift.it/wl023/ is a ...
@ziodave

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ziodave

ziodave Mar 22, 2016

Member

We can rely on what Wikidata is doing with the dataset dump:

https://query.wikidata.org/#select%20distinct%20%3Fp%20%3Fo%20where%20%7B%0A%20%20%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Fwikiba.se%2Fontology%23Dump%3E%20%3Fp%20%3Fo%0A%7D%0Alimit%20100

and export the following predicates:

<http://wikiba.se/ontology#Dump>  rdf:type  schema:Dataset
<http://wikiba.se/ontology#Dump>  <http://creativecommons.org/ns#license>   <http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/>
<http://wikiba.se/ontology#Dump>  schema:softwareVersion    0.0.1
<http://wikiba.se/ontology#Dump>  schema:dateModified   2015-11-30T23:00:04Z
Member

ziodave commented Mar 22, 2016

We can rely on what Wikidata is doing with the dataset dump:

https://query.wikidata.org/#select%20distinct%20%3Fp%20%3Fo%20where%20%7B%0A%20%20%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Fwikiba.se%2Fontology%23Dump%3E%20%3Fp%20%3Fo%0A%7D%0Alimit%20100

and export the following predicates:

<http://wikiba.se/ontology#Dump>  rdf:type  schema:Dataset
<http://wikiba.se/ontology#Dump>  <http://creativecommons.org/ns#license>   <http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/>
<http://wikiba.se/ontology#Dump>  schema:softwareVersion    0.0.1
<http://wikiba.se/ontology#Dump>  schema:dateModified   2015-11-30T23:00:04Z

@mcolacino mcolacino removed this from the 3.6 milestone May 17, 2016

@ziodave ziodave added this to the 3.12 milestone Mar 15, 2017

@ziodave ziodave modified the milestones: 3.12, 3.13 Apr 23, 2017

@ziodave ziodave modified the milestone: 3.13 Jun 8, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment