Thank you for the offer, Duane. (01)
That said, the Ontolog IPR Policy ( ref.
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid32 ) is very
loose, as that, together with the member contribution policy ( ref.
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nidLMK ) are
there just to help provide guidelines for "nominal behavior" and
practice when Ontolog members interact in this community of practice
(CoP - ref. http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CommunityofPractice
). And, COP's, by definition, are informal - we are only supposed to
be having some good "drinking fountain conversation". The intent here,
is to help make sure we keep the signal-to-noise ratio high, and that
the open body of knowledge that is collaborative being assembled by
the community, is "really open" and useful (and not littered with IP
traps). (02)
However, when it comes to real projects, say, in the case OOR (the
Open Ontology Repository initiative, which is a spun-off project,
separate and distinct from the Ontolog CoP, but still being incubated
in the Ontolog collaborative work environment), we would need to be
more formal, and a lot more careful. Therefore, if you recall, we did
a fairly thorough exercise (along with collaborators, and outside
expert help), prior to establishing the OOR-IPR Policy back in 2010
(see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository_IPR#nid2L0S
). (03)
... so, indeed, any additional help in this area is always useful. (04)
Thanks in advance. =ppy
-- (05)
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Duane Nickull
<duane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Peter:
>
> This might be a topic to take offline. I don't know if the conveners of
> the Ontolog Forum ever actually made an enumerated list of acceptable
> licenses to define "open" or have passed judgement on them.
>
> IMHO, MPL is fine but there are a host of others.
>
> The only caveat I see here is that the license is declared at the
> "project" level. Assuming a hereditary model, that should cover all
> pieces of the project but seasoned developers usually place the license
> statement in each class or resource such as done here:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/webservices/commons/tags/axiom/1.2.13/src/main
> /assembly/bin.xml?view=markup
>
>
> I'd be willing to help on this if you wanted.
>
> Duane Nickull
> ***********************************
> Technoracle Advanced Systems Inc.
> Consulting and Contracting; Proven Results!
> i. Neo4J, PDF, Java, LiveCycle ES, Flex, AIR, CQ5 & Mobile
> b. http://technoracle.blogspot.com
> t. @duanechaos
> "Don't fear the Graph! Embrace Neo4J" (06)
> On 2012-11-15 3:16 PM, "Peter Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Thank you Duane, Jack and again, to Piotr ...
>>
>>[DN] I trust that the MPL license is sufficient for Ontolog Forum to
>>at least allow discussion here?
>>
>>[ppy] yes, indeed. In fact, if the code is licensed under anyone of
>>the free software or open source licenses (and in the case of content,
>>any open content license) would suffice.
>>
>>Regards. =ppy
>>-- (07)
>>On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Duane Nickull
>><duane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> Jumping in late here. I always look when there is code and it quite
>>>clearly states that his code base is subject to the
>>>
>>> Code license
>>> Mozilla Public License 1.1
>>>
>>> http://code.google.com/p/linked-facts/
>>>
>>> I also perused the main trunk and all the code is in fact open
>>>(although Piotr, you may want to add a header to each source file with a
>>>statement of license and link to help others understand this). I trust
>>>that the MPL license is sufficient for Ontolog Forum to at least allow
>>>discussion here?
>>>
>>> Assuming it is, the code project appears to be a way to map OWL to SQL.
>>> The current code base does this with a lot of hard coded statement
>>>constructors and is heavily string based. Sample:
>>>
>>> if(name.equals("occurs_before"))
>>> result = "SELECT 1 FROM {TABLE_NAME}
>>>{Q2} WHERE "+(additionalCondition != null ? additionalCondition :
>>>"")+"{Q1}.{DATE_FIELD} < {Q2}.{DATE_FIELD} ";
>>> else if(!name.contains("_day"))
>>> throw new
>>>OwlToSqlTransformationException("Unsupported time unit of a temporal
>>>object property: "+name);
>>> else if(name.contains("between"))
>>> result = "SELECT 1 FROM {TABLE_NAME}
>>>{Q2} WHERE "+(additionalCondition != null ? additionalCondition :
>>>"")+"("+conf.getDBSpecificDateDifference("{Q2}.{DATE_FIELD} -
>>>{Q1}.{DATE_FIELD}")+" BETWEEN
>>>"+TextProcessingUtils.parseNumberOfDaysBetween(name)+") ";
>>> else if(name.startsWith("occurs_max"))
>>> result = "SELECT 1 FROM {TABLE_NAME}
>>>{Q2} WHERE "+(additionalCondition != null ? additionalCondition :
>>>"")+"("+conf.getDBSpecificDateDifference("{Q2}.{DATE_FIELD} -
>>>{Q1}.{DATE_FIELD}")+" BETWEEN 1 AND
>>>"+TextProcessingUtils.parseNumberOfDays(name)+") ";
>>> else if(name.startsWith("occurs_min"))
>>> result = "SELECT 1 FROM {TABLE_NAME}
>>>{Q2} WHERE "+(additionalCondition != null ? additionalCondition :
>>>"")+conf.getDBSpecificDateDifference("{Q2}.{DATE_FIELD} -
>>>{Q1}.{DATE_FIELD}")+" >= "+TextProcessingUtils.parseNumberOfDays(name)+"
>>>";
>>> else
>>>if(name.substring(0,8).matches("occurs_[0-9]"))
>>> result = "SELECT 1 FROM {TABLE_NAME}
>>>{Q2} WHERE "+(additionalCondition != null ? additionalCondition :
>>>"")+conf.getDBSpecificDateDifference("{Q2}.{DATE_FIELD} -
>>>{Q1}.{DATE_FIELD}")+" = "+TextProcessingUtils.parseNumberOfDays(name)+"
>>>";
>>> else
>>> throw new
>>>OwlToSqlTransformationException("Unsupported temporal object property:
>>>"+name);
>>> }
>>>
>>> It looks like an interesting approach although I am not sure how
>>>scalable it is the way it is factored. I applaud someone actually
>>>taking ontological concepts and writing code.
>>>
>>> YAMMV
>>>
>>> Duane Nickull
>>>
>>> ***********************************
>>> Technoracle Advanced Systems Inc.
>>> Consulting and Contracting; Proven Results!
>>> i. Neo4J, PDF, Java, LiveCycle ES, Flex, AIR, CQ5 & Mobile
>>> b. http://technoracle.blogspot.com
>>> t. @duanechaos
>>> "Don't fear the Graph! Embrace Neo4J" (08)
>>On 14/11/2012 1:07 PM, Jack Park wrote:
>>> Out of curiosity, is the link at the bottom
>>> http://code.google.com/p/linked-facts/ the actual code being discussed
>>> here?
>>>
>>> Jack (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (010)
|