Hello, as in the responses to my mail my motivation was interpreted quite differently I just want to make clear what I would expect from Bibframe and Library of Congress regarding data licensing. Taking a look at licensing of library data now and in the past, I think that both Jörg and Ed make a valid point. Generally, libraries in the past haven't thought much about licensing their data nor was it common practice to have contracts with every partner library and other institutions you exchanded data with. (At least, I can tell that from German practice and I know that contracts that (did) exist weren't written by lawyers and thus are sometimes in large parts ineffective.) The cooperative practice of data exchange between libraries was more grounded on mutual agreement and goodwill but on written contracts or licenses. This practice worked for quite a while until the web came along and sharing of data more and more moved from a bilateral acts to being a public act as it happens (or at least should happen) on the web. That was the time when the uncertainty arose that Ed speaks about, and now programmers and others who are interested in the data often don't know under which conditions, if at all, they can re-use data. We see an analogous development in other areas. For example, writers and artists didn't have to think about licensing their content before there was a way to easily make their stuff available to everyone with internet access. In a print-world I don't have to think very much about licensing, I sign the publishers contract and let him make my work available. For more than ten years now, publishers on the web increasingly have started explicitly stating what people can do with their stuff. Creative Commons (and again Aaron Swartz who helped build the technical basis for CC) certainly was and is an important enabler for licensing things on the web as CC licenses make this act so easy. I believe it is crucial that libraries and other cultural heritage institutions provide a good example and make clear what people can do with the stuff provided by libraries, be it digitized material, bibliographic data or other things. That said, my first request towards Bibframe was already articulated by Ed: 1."[I]t is extremely important that Bibframe provide the mechanics for explicitly stating the license associated with the bibliographic data being expressed". This is the minimum Bibframe should provide and it can be done on the data model level. But I understand the Bibframe initiative not solely being about a data model but about building a framework for the future infrastructure of exchanging and sharing library data. A shared data model is an important part here as methods for data exchange and synchronization are which Bibframe will also work on. (BTW, I hope Bibframe will not try to re-invent the wheel but re-use existing solutions like these being developed by NISO and OAI in the ResourceSync initiative [1].) Additionally, I would say that in building a framework for the future infrastructure of data exchange in and out the library world, there is one thing at least as important as a data model and exchange methods: that is _open_ licensing. Open licensing doesn't only mean that license terms are made explicit when publishing things on the web but using licensing terms that conform with the open definition.[2] Thus, I have two other request towards Bibframe/LoC regarding open licensing: 2. Library of Congress should - as one of the first and most important implementers of Bibframe - provide an example of open licensing by choosing CC0 or - maybe even better for most bibliographic data - a Public Domain Mark [3]. (Although Loc data might already be in the public domain it would be good for many potential re-users - especially in an web-wide, international context - to have an explicit statement about the data's public domain status. See John Wilbanks post on that topic at [4].) 3. Furthermore, Bibframe should promote the other institutions. Endorsing the "Principles on Open Bibliographic Data" [5] might be an easy start for doing this. I hope this long mail makes the motivation behind my initial query clearer. I am looking forward to hearing which parts of the licensing aspect will be adressed by Bibframe. All the best Adrian [1] http://www.niso.org/workrooms/resourcesync/ [2] http://opendefinition.org/okd/ [3] http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ [4] http://del-fi.org/post/19787775081/us-government-and-cc0 [5] http://openbiblio.net/principles/ >>> Ed Summers 02.02.13 11.07 Uhr >>> This is an excellent (and timely) point, thanks for raising it Adrian. I would just like to observe two things: a) Linked Data *can* be used in closed contexts, where Web technology is useful for data interchange within an enterprise, or within the context of a commercial agreement. I'm not saying it should, but just that Linked Data itself is neutral about the license. We use Linked Data principles internally at LC for some back office applications, which nobody outside LC sees, or needs to see. b) There is a big difference between encouraging the Library of Congress (as a public institution) to share its bibliographic data using open licenses, and having the Bibframe specification itself (which could theoretically be used by a commercial entity like EBSCO, Elsevier, etc) require that data be openly licensed. Personally (insert standard disclaimer here) I think the former makes a whole lot of sense, but as Kevin said, it is likely to be outside of the scope of Bibframe as a data format. This does beg the question of what venue there is to discuss this issue though. Perhaps there is a perception that this discussion list is the place to discuss the licensing of content at the Library of Congress? All that being said, and returning to Adrian's point, I do think it is extremely important that Bibframe provide the mechanics for explicitly stating the license associated with the bibliographic data being expressed. I'm thinking of something like how the rel="license" Microformat works in HTML [1] or how the Creative Commons encourages licenses to be expressed in HTML [2]. This mechanism could be used to say exactly what "open" means, and could also be used in more closed contexts. Contrary to Jörg's point, I think that the MARC world we currently live in is marked by uncertainty: more often than not we don't really know if the data we have in hand is open or closed, or if parts of it are open, and parts of it are closed. And I would argue we don't have agreement about what "open" or "closed" actually mean. OCLC has recently been showing the way forward in their use of ODC-BY [3] to license data sets. I think it is extremely important that Bibframe data provide a mechanism for explicitly stating the license associated with the data, and that we strongly encourage its use it as a community, even in situations where the license is not deemed "open". Just so it's not forgotten I opened an issue ticket for it over on Github [4]. //Ed [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-license [2] http://wiki.creativecommons.org/RDFa [3] http://www.oclc.org/us/en/news/releases/2012/201248.htm [4] https://github.com/lcnetdev/marc2bibframe/issues/6 On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Amanda Xu wrote: > > I would be very happy if software, deliverables, and access to resources > that are needed to build and operate systems that can process Bibframe > >data are open sourced and liberally licensed. I personally see a new > market for a new type of system vendors, with other competences and > >different viewpoints, influenced by the open-ness of the Semantic Web > community. > > The key issue is to enable library users to choose the appropriate copy > whether it is under restricted license or "open sourced and liberally > licensed." The appropriate copy is defined as the copy representing not > only the most authoritative, authenticated> lock for a researcher's task completion. > > > *Amanda Xu * > *[log in to unmask] (email)* > ** > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Olivier Speciel > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Sent:* Friday, February 1, 2013 11:14 PM > *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe & Licensing > > Yes. > Tks. > > > Olivier Spéciel. > > Le 2013-02-01 à 12:53, "Jörg Prante" a écrit : > > > Hello, > > > > I think what Adrian refers to is the point that many ILS vendors tend to > policies that lock bibliographic data away in silos. If libraries want to > export their data from the product, they often need to buy additional > licenses. That is naturally an issue to be carried on with the vendors how > they create licenses for their customers, according to their business plans. > > > > It's our common concern that Bibframe may be used just as a "product > feature label" for continuing the same old policy to restrict libraries to > get their bibliographic data processed, for example, to build union > catalogs. > > > > By adding open access APIs and smart linked data mechanims to library > systems, we hope to overcome the issue, so libraries can fully embrace the > promise the Semantic Web and Linked Open Data is making - free, > unrestricted linked access to academic resources worldwide, anytime, from > anywhere, by any person. In memoriam Aaron Swartz. > > > > In a MARC world, we could have agreed that licensing bibliographic data > packages is an orthogonal topic. MARC records were closed entities, > sequentially produced in files, and transmitted in packages over a computer > network, by a controlled workflow between known parties. But in a > Bibframe'd world, the whole Bibframe concept simply won't work if external > references in Bibframe streams would link to catalog entities that are > behind access-restricted systems, just because libraries are not rich > enough to pay their vendors for all the extra licenses. > > > > So the quest is, how the building blocks around Bibframe are provided - > if entities and resources are officially labeled with the term "Bibframe", > who is allowed to re-use und re-distribute them without permission. > > > > I would be very happy if software, deliverables, and access to resources > that are needed to build and operate systems that can process Bibframe data > are open sourced and liberally licensed. I personally see a new market for > a new type of system vendors, with other competences and different > viewpoints, influenced by the open-ness of the Semantic Web community. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Jörg > > > > > > Am 01.02.13 17:37, schrieb Kevin Ford: > >> Dear Adrian, > >> > >> IN re-reading your email, I may have conflated two distinct issues. > One being the licensing around the BIBFRAME model and the other, which I > didn't address but which you mention, that has to do with the licensing of > bibliographic data. > >> > >> The latter, at this time, is beyond the scope of BIBFRAME, in just the > same way that licensing issues surrounding data described in MARC does not > bear directly on the usage licensing of the MARC format itself. > >> > >> Warmly, > >> Kevin > >> > >> On 02/01/2013 10:31 AM, Kevin Ford wrote: > >>> Dear Adrian, > >>> > >>> This actually came up once before on this list [1], the summation of > >>> which was, from Sally, BIBFRAME "will be [made available for use] > >>> liberally like MARC." > >>> > >>> That said, we need to work on clearly articulating license issues. Now > >>> that we've reached a few milestones, we have some time to look into > >>> these but the initial comment on this from November remains accurate: > it > >>> will be made with little or no restrictions. > >>> > >>> Suffice it to say, uptake is important and liberal licensing will > foster > >>> that. > >>> > >>> Yours, > >>> > >>> Kevin > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> > http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1211&L=BIBFRAME&P=R5716&I=-3&X=482FBE44475D7F8C44 > >>> > >>> > >>> On 02/01/2013 04:27 AM, Adrian Pohl wrot> >>>> representing bibliographic data and moves to the discussion of future > >>>> data exchange and protocols, I would like to point to another key > >>>> aspect of a future bibliographic framework. It's the licensing aspect > >>>> that already was discussed in 2007 after the publication of LoC's > >>>> report "On the Future of Bibliographic Control" [1] that prepared the > >>>> ground for Bibframe. At this time, some people were "concerned that > >>>> the report lacks any discussion of a key component for any future of > >>>> bibliographic data: open licensing and access" and published a > >>>> response to the Library of Congress [2] (co-drafted by the Open > >>>> Knowledge Foundation and Aaron Swartz, see [3]). As far as I know, LoC > >>>> never reacted to this response. Since 2007, many libraries and related > >>>> institutions have embraced open licensing. Thus, integrating a > >>>> licensing policy into the bibliographic framework shouldn't be a big > >>>> deal by now. > >>>> > >>>> I am curious whether it is planned to address the licensing aspect in > >>>> the development of Bibframe and when this will happen. I would be > >>>> happy if Bibframe made clear how the web-wide free flow of > >>>> bibliographic data will be LEGALLY ensured and won't be hampered by > >>>> intellectual property right and licensing conditions. > >>>> > >>>> All the best > >>>> Adrian Pohl > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> [1] http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/ > >>>> > >>>> [2] http://wiki.okfn.org/FutureOfBibliographicControl > >>>> > >>>> [3] > >>>> > http://blog.okfn.org/2013/01/14/goodbye-aaron-swartz-and-long-live-your-legacy/ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Adrian Pohl > >>>> - Linked Open Data - > >>>> hbz - Hochschulbibliothekszentrum des Landes NRW > >>>> Tel: (+49)(0)221 - 400 75 235 > >>>> http://www.hbz-nrw.de > >>>> > > >