Please know that I do not wish turn this into any form of a defensive argument as my intent is not to cause any grief nor is it to advertise commercial products or services. My response to John was to answer his questions to the best of my ability and not to promote what I or our companies do. Any statement that my response is anything other than an attempt to properly answer his question is false.
I’d like to respectfully point out that I”m a bit confused about what you choose to enforce or not enforce. For example, you appear to be inconsistent in the enforcement of your policies when it comes to the many group members that regularly point to proprietary copyrighted material, both with material that is their own as well as published by others.
I also respectfully disagree with you that pointing to “examples”, such as in the case of my Predicate Collections post, is a violation of your rules. For example, in order to comply with your interpretations of the policies, I’d have to build an entire application and publish all its source code to the community for open consumption (consisting of hundreds of thousands or even millions of lines of code), only to show a single simple singular example of how some small conceptual feature might work. This does not seem logical or productive, especially since this community does not manage source code applications that do what our own software does nor would I expect it to be your intent to do so, as we go far beyond ontologies and related subject matters.
Again, I apologize for any grief this may be causing you but I am not out to advertise.
The issues at hand are:
1. your posts ( like:
are in breach of the ONTOLOG members' contribution guideline, where it
is specifically stated that:
... unless specifically requested/solicited by other community
member(s), please make sure any commercial- or self-promotion material
or reference are strictly limited to one's namesake page or a short
signature block, and nowhere else as far as our open collaborative
work environment is concerned.
2. while you may use your own definition to interpret "open" when your
readers are interacting with you on your IF4IT.COM site, you are
expected to use ONTOLOG's definition of "open" or "free" ( please see
) when interacting with other Ontolog members in the Ontolog CWE
(collaborative work environment).
3. as previously mentioned, your "Open and Sanctioned Use Policy" is
neither "Open" nor "free" technology, nor is that consistent with
Ontolog's "open content" policy
4. ... and hence, my advice is that you should consider refraining
from posting your work here, les you risk nullifying your own
licensing policy (as a principal of IF4IT.com) or breaching the
Ontolog Open IPR Policy (as a member of the Ontolog community.)
5. I would also note that "CIM" (the Company I am involved in, which
has been donating some of the Ontolog infrastructure and services) has
nothing to do with the IPR conversation here. This is all about
Ontolog members' Contribution Guidelines and Policy, and the respect
Member of the ONTOLOG Board of Trustees
Yes, I do remember our conversations and I’m aware of Ontolog’s posted
policies. Thanks for the reminders and the links. I'll certainly go
through them, again, just to be sure of terms.
Please know that, like many other participating CIM members, I’m very
careful and go out of my way to “not" post anything that is considered
proprietary to the enterprises I represent or any other organization, for
that matter. And, I recognize that what I do discuss openly, in this or any
other community, is a matter of open conversation. I do my best to be very
careful in separating anything that could be considered legal intellectual
capital from general conversation.
Also, I’m sure you're fully aware that referenced citations, quotes, and
links to materials and examples which originate and exist offsite and that
are not already original works of CIM do not, by law, constitute original
works of CIM, even if CIM’s documented policies were to state otherwise
(which I don’t believe they do).
As for the IF4IT's published definition of “open” and how it pertains to
Foundation published open material, in short, “open" means that people and
enterprises can use the material for “themselves" but simply cannot
interpret our brands or our works as their own nor can they directly profit
from them without explicit consent from the IF4IT. We go out of our way to
separate what is “open” from what is “for profit."
Please know that when I publish links to to things like visual examples, I
know and am very clear on the fact that the visual representation of those
examples are not considered intellectual capital because, by law, no one can
claim “Look and Feel” to be intellectual capital, as per law suits such as
Apple vs. Microsoft. And, if people wish to copy such look and feel, I wish
them the best in doing so and I’m even happy to help them do so, when I can,
as we publish visualization source code to the open source community via
GitHub (we use d3js.org).
If there’s any concern or ambiguity, please always feel free to reach out
and ask, as I will always do my best to help. In the mean time, please know
that I truly appreciate the Ontolog community and its members and that I
will share whatever I can (although, I find that there are far smarter
people than me in this community).
Frank Guerino, Chairman
The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
I believe we had communicated about this before (ref.
some of the offline exchange we had around that time) ...
that your "Open and Sanctioned Use Policy" is neither "Open" (as in
the "Open Source Definition", nor "Free" (as in the "Free Software
Definition"), nor is that consistent with either the OpenContent
License:OPL-1.0 or the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-3.0
(Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0) License.
I assume you are fully aware of the ONTOLOG contribution policy,
and by posting about your work and inviting contributions to it here,
you may nullify your own licensing restrictions or, at the least,
breach our Ontolog Open IPR Policy.
Please, again, review our (Ontolog members') Contribution Guidelines
and Policy, and in particular, our Open IPR Policy, and ensure
your posts are consistent with them.
Thanks & regards. =ppy