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(a)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 [1]
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org [2]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l [3]
>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing
list
> Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Links:
------
[1]
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Sannita
[2]
mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
[3]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l