No sir, that is not right. As I said there is no "ISO classification scheme" of which I am aware. And I've said I no longer have interest in the wikidata team using ISO Topic Maps - that is a dead issue since the team declined to discuss it.
*At the time I wrote the emails you referenced* I was interested in the SNAKS data model the team summarily announced as the basis for Wikidata implementation, in preparation as I recall for Wikimania. I felt the SNAKS data model was one that vaguely resembled the already peer reviewed and internationally standardized Topic Maps data model, while the SNAKS data model was surely not ever going to be either peer reviewed or standardized -- yet another discordant "stovepipe" not of remarkable benefit to the (LOD) technical community.
Both SNAKS and the Topic Map data models ("abstract syntaxes") can be serialized using the concrete RDF syntax (or so the W3 is said to be working on, for Topic Maps); both can/are serializable in concrete JSON syntax.
So the copyright concern arose *directly from* that resemblance between the two data models. My suggestion *at the time* was to purchase the ISO standard and modify it as necessary; doing so would surely sidestep all concern about SNAKS infringing on the ISO's copyright of an abstract syntax that does NOT attempt to reference other ontologies, i.e., both in contrast to the RDF's data model which DOES integrate one or more ontologies. Essentially, both SNAKS and Topic Maps allow an author to define named-values without reference to any other ontology.
As an aside, assigning responsibility to the WP community for how content is "structured" I think is so vague as to be uninformative; you provide no definition of "structure" -- is it the concept of ontology? Sure, by using Wikidata's parser functions (client server APIs) WPs will determine how information is *presented" in their infoboxes, but the "structure" is surely going to be *only* that which SNAKS allows -- that is, named values. Whether a page's named values will be related to any ontologies, remains to be seen. For instance, will Thomas Jefferson's named-values will be exchangeable with FOAF, Dublin Core or SKOS processors? I dunno!
best - john
On 05.09.2012 14:13, Friedrich Röhrs wrote:
Hi Luca, a) as far as I have understood Nadja Kutz and John McClure want the wikidata dev team to somehow commit to using ISO topic maps for the classification of the content of wikidata. The Dev teams position is that how the content will finally be structured is not up to them but to the community once the technical means to create the structure are there. As far as the whole arguments about using or not using ISO goes, again as far as I have understood one position is not to use them because it would force other wanting to adhere to the standard to also pay for it (pay to get the documentation about how it works) and wikimedia somehow to pay for it too, while the other position is that wikidata should use it because its an "industry standard" and the money that would have to be paid wasn't all that much. Furthermore the argument is, is that if its not done, some copyright could be infringed (not the ISO one but some other). There are (IMHO) a multitude of topics about this whole thing, most prominent: [Wikidata-l] [[meta:wikitopics]] updated it's a bit hard to follow in archive because it stretches multiple months (starting points in case you want to read up) http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata-l/2012-May/000583.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata-l/2012-June/000624.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata-l/2012-June/000638.html [...] b) No one has yet identified as an attorney or copyright expert; on the contrary most everyone has said they are not. hope this helps, Friedrich On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Luca Martinelli <martinelliluca@gmail.com> wrote:Dear all, sorry but I think I didn't correctly got the point of the whole thing. Probably, I was overestimating my English competence, or my free-licensing competence, or both. So, without ANY intention of being rude, or even polemical, I would like to ask: "what is this discussion about, again?" If I got it right, someone expressed his/her doubts about using ISO standards in classifying data on Wikidata because of [this point may be challenged, but this is what I understood] potential ISO copyright issues. Now, the points are: a) Is my guess correct? If no, what is the point this discussion is about? b) Is there anyone who could answer this doubt, whatever it is? Just trying to follow this thread, nothing more. Thank you. -- Luca "Sannita" Martinelli http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Sannita _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l