[LTER-im] RFC on licensing the LTER Controlled Vocabulary
Henshaw, Donald
don.henshaw at oregonstate.edu
Fri Nov 17 13:17:14 PST 2017
Wade and all,
Some thoughts...
I would endorse the formal release of the LTER controlled vocabulary under creative commons CC0. The Andrews LTER has adopted this list as its base vocabulary. The organization and structure generally follow the ANSI/NISO Z39 standard, which was much preferred to our out-dated Andrews controlled vocabulary. The Andrews had 275 exact matches to the approximate 700 preferred keywords in the LTER list, and many more near matches that were easily mapped to the corresponding LTER keyword.
That said, we have locally added many more words into this structure to better accommodate our site needs. Any other group would likely face the same issues and would probably need to add additional words. It brings up the question whether we would be proactive to accept feedback from various user groups and add new words if they seemed acceptable. Do we want to continue to update and improve this list or simply leave it as is?
John Porter has done a great job in leading this effort and applying best practices to the development of our list. However, there is certainly room for improvement as the team (of which I was a member) never finished defining words, there are a dozen or so orphans with no broader term in the list, and there are still keywords missing, e.g., there are no words for social science or human dimensions. We have also never re-evaluated this list after the original release (2013?) to see how well it accommodates the needs of the LTER sites.
I'm not necessarily saying revisiting the controlled vocabulary is a high priority right now, I am just thinking there may be higher scrutiny and feedback for our list if we formally release it, and ask whether we will continue to curate a master list.
Current vocabulary in Tema Tres: http://vocab.lternet.edu
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: im [mailto:im-bounces at lists.lternet.edu] On Behalf Of Wade Sheldon
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:34 PM
To: Gastil Gastil-Buhl
Cc: LTER IM
Subject: Re: [LTER-im] RFC on licensing the LTER Controlled Vocabulary
Gastil is right that CC0 is not a license per se, but it is a response to "what license is this vocabulary released under" which is the matter at hand regarding Wiley's inquiry. CC0 waives copyright, and is technically a "public domain dedication" (see https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ and https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). So it's an alternative choice to "licensing" the vocabulary and making requirements of end-users.
Wade
On 11/2/2017 3:22 PM, Gastil Gastil-Buhl wrote:
> Hi Eda and Wade,
>
> I realize this is just a choice of words, or semantics, but since Vocab is all about choosing the right words, I will add my response to Eda's question.
>
> The cc-0 is the explicit absence of a license. It is not a license. By releasing Vocab under cc-0 we are telling users that there is no license. We are not licensing it. The implication is that any restriction a license would have imposed are removed.
>
> And yes, it is wonderful to have you back online Eda!
>
> Gastil
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Wade Sheldon <sheldon at uga.edu <mailto:sheldon at uga.edu>> wrote:
>
> Hi Eda,
>
> Glad to hear from you!
>
> I'll let John address your question too, but the primary goal is to provide formal guidance to adopters of what rights they have to use the vocabulary. In the case of CC0, that communicates that the vocabulary is public domain and they are free to use it for whatever purpose without restriction and without the requirement to credit the source. Of course attribution is always encouraged in an academic setting.
>
> If a more restrictive license were chosen, like CC-BY (see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/>) then users would be required to include formal attribution in any products. However, that would not be practical to enforce legally, and John made the point that the words were drawn from so many sources and already remixed so much, without formal licensing from the sources, that proper attribution would be awkward at best and impossible at worst.
>
> So in my opinion the main implication is that by formally attaching a license, particularly CC0, we would be encouraging broadest use of the vocabulary by providing clarity to end-users.
>
> Wade
>
>
>
>
> On 11/1/2017 8:35 PM, Eda C. Melendez-Colom wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> To decide if this is a good decision I need to know what are the implications of licencing.
>
> EDA
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>>
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Wade Sheldon
> <sheldon at uga.edu <mailto:sheldon at uga.edu>> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> The IMC Controlled Vocabulary working group, led by John Porter, has received a variety of requests from other groups seeking to leverage the LTER vocabulary. Past inquiries have included included EnvThes (http://www.enveurope.eu/news/envthes-environmental-thesaurus <http://www.enveurope.eu/news/envthes-environmental-thesaurus>), a European thesaurus that imported it wholesale, then added to it, NEON (via Christine Laney) and WHOI (via Janet Fredricks). Most recently, the Content Enrichment team at Wiley (a commercial publisher) has asked for permission to use the vocabulary and brought up the notion of licensing.
>
> John has sought input from IM-Exec on how to license the vocabulary for use outside LTER. He is recommending we formally release the vocabulary under a CC0 (public domain) license. The keywords were drawn from so many sources that attribution would be problematic, and a CC0 license would support broadest use.
>
> As you may recall the vocabulary was initially assembled by mining keywords used in LTER site metadata and then refined and augmented with input from working group members and other interested IMs. Because LTER sites all contributed to this effort, IM-Exec would like to give the IMC an opportunity to comment on this issue. Please reply to this email or contact me directly if you have an opinion you'd like to voice on what licensing is appropriate. I will collect feedback until the Nov 13 IMC VWC and then collate the results.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Wade Sheldon
> GCE-LTER
>
> -- ____________________________________
>
> Wade M. Sheldon
> GCE-LTER Information Manager
> School of Marine Programs
> University of Georgia
> Athens, GA 30602-3636
> Email: sheldon at uga.edu <mailto:sheldon at uga.edu> <mailto:sheldon at uga.edu <mailto:sheldon at uga.edu>>
> WWW: http://gce-lter.marsci.uga.edu/bios/wsheldon <http://gce-lter.marsci.uga.edu/bios/wsheldon>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Long Term Ecological Research Network
> im mailing list
> im at lternet.edu <mailto:im at lternet.edu> <mailto:im at lternet.edu <mailto:im at lternet.edu>>
>
>
> --
> ____________________________________
>
> Wade M. Sheldon
> GCE-LTER Information Manager
> School of Marine Programs
> University of Georgia
> Athens, GA 30602-3636
> Email: sheldon at uga.edu <mailto:sheldon at uga.edu>
> WWW: http://gce-lter.marsci.uga.edu/bios/wsheldon <http://gce-lter.marsci.uga.edu/bios/wsheldon>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Long Term Ecological Research Network
> im mailing list
> im at lternet.edu <mailto:im at lternet.edu>
>
>
--
____________________________________
Wade M. Sheldon
GCE-LTER Information Manager
School of Marine Programs
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602-3636
Email: sheldon at uga.edu
WWW: http://gce-lter.marsci.uga.edu/bios/wsheldon
_______________________________________________
Long Term Ecological Research Network
im mailing list
im at lternet.edu
More information about the im
mailing list