[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data

Eugene Alvin Villar seav80 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 29 13:56:00 GMT 2011


On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think the word "independent" also applies to "data" and "other materials".
>
>
> I don't think so. Claiming that a collection of data would not be a database if the Data is Not independent  does not make much sense IMHO

Well, the wording of the definition is such that it's quite ambiguous
whether the word "independent" applies only to the first noun phrase
(works), or to all three.(works, data and other materials).

I am likely to think that the latter interpretation is the case
because a traditional way of thinking of a database is as a collection
of individual records arranged systematically and individually
accessible, such as a collection of individual phone numbers with
corresponding names, in a phone book. It doesn't make much sense to be
able to access individual entries if you have to combine them with
other entries to make them useful.

Relational databases blur this traditional sense but that's because
you use relational databases to normalize redundant data. If you don't
normalize your data, you arrive back at the "traditional" database
where each record stands on its own.



More information about the legal-talk mailing list