Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Adrian Pohl
opendata libraries linkeddata
opendata libraries linkeddata


I am currently getting a 502 BAD Gateway for

$ curl -v
* Rebuilt URL to:
* Hostname was NOT found in DNS cache
* Trying
* Connected to ( port 80 (#0)
> GET / HTTP/1.1
> User-Agent: curl/7.35.0
> Host:
> Accept: /
< HTTP/1.1 502 Bad Gateway
* Server nginx/1.1.19 is not blacklisted
< Server: nginx/1.1.19
< Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 08:22:11 GMT
< Content-Type: text/html
< Content-Length: 173
< Connection: keep-alive

LOV search is currently down, e.g.

Post has attachment
The results on a "Survey on Common Strategies of Vocabulary Reuse in Linked Open Data Modeling" are available.
Quoting from a mail that recently went out to survey participants:

"In December of 2013 we asked the LOD community to participate in a survey on vocabulary reuse. Now, we are happy to announce that we have finalized analyzing the participant’s answers and that we would like to share the results with you.

In detail, we have published a paper [1] at ESWC in 2014 on this topic (presentation of the paper in [2]). Furthermore, we published an extended technical report in [3] that illustrates the results in more detail. Finally, if you like to take a look at the raw data in SPSS format, you can download it from the GESIS data repository service [4]. It also includes the entire survey in PDF format."

In the Conclusion it reads ([1], p.15):

"The results of the ranking tasks illustrate that reusing vocabulary terms from widely-used as well as domain specific vocabularies directly is considered a better approach than defining proprietary terms and interlink them with external classes and properties."

[1] -

[2] -

[3] -

[4] -

Post has attachment
Adrian Pohl commented on a post on Blogger.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
I published some thoughts on "Providing machine-readable application profiles with OAI-ORE":

It would be interesting to hear your opinion and learn about other approaches of publishing machine-readable application profiles.

Post has shared content
Last year, +Adrian Pohl and I interviewed +Brewster Kahle, founder of the Internet Archive, on the OKCon. The interview is now available online.

Brewster's talk at the same conference is available online, too:
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
This discussion about non-commercial licenses sums up the pros and cons very well. I am curious what will eventually come out of the CC 4.0 process. (I'm fully in favour of removing NC from the CC license suite so that we get nearer to one (not many) creative commons...)
I’ve been asked (putting it mildly) why we’d choose to make data available with a CC-BY-NC license – especially the NC bit and how this has the potential to introduce uncertainty with future reuse. There are discussions going on about why the NC is a bad clause, and all I hear are the advocates against. This doesn’t really fit on a company blog, so here’s my personal view.

Actually, Mike Linksvayer of CC has saved me a whole pot of writing, with his comment on PMR’s original NC rant. And by his pdf on the CC deliberations and discussion on the future of NC ( I think it’s an admirable summary of both sides of the for- and against-NC argument – and I have great respect for the work of Creative Commons and resources they’ve provided.

I’ll certainly acknowledge the perception gap between licensors – and we absolutely fit the mould that we think we’d take a liberal view of requests and to what ‘commercial’ means – and the licensees who think they’re prevented.

The only additions I can give (which may be commonly understood, but I’ll make them anyway) are:

Making organisation-owned content available by CC is a great opportunity, but organisations need to take a big leap of faith to drop the NC element. It’s a risk - an unquantifiable risk which may be low, but one which I think many organisations have difficulty with ignoring. It’s the same for individuals as well, but the leap of faith to drop NC is a decision easier made by individuals than organisations.

The leap of faith? It’s not about preventing re-users making a few bucks here and there, but if it’s work with real intellectual effort involved, it is really difficult for many to exclude any possibility of getting a cut if a bright spark makes a million off it. It may not be realistic, but there’s a real human instinct to protect. It’s one of the reasons data isn’t shared more - and I’m involved in efforts to promote open sharing of data as well, through ChemSpider and Open PHACTS - but there are real social and organisational issues before you just ascribe motives to worries about immediate revenue loss.

RSC will shortly be making some educational resources available as NC. It’s great that we have a standard licence to offer them under. We paid for them, we’re making them available to academics for use and reuse for free. Here the intention of NC is not to protect revenue, but to prevent others taking this and charging others for it. Doesn’t sound unreasonable to me, no doubt others will differ.

So that’s my summary really – discouraging, or marginalising, NC will make that gap for organisations to leap into CC greater than it is already. NC provides a safe part of the bridge. My concern is that without it, the safe option would then be not to release. I also suspect that (as acknowledged in Mike’s pdf) that the same applies for individuals.
I would much prefer that available content ends up as CC in some form, as the alternative is likely to be no content or content with no license.
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
Es gibt nun einen Rechtsleitfaden zur "Freigabe von Daten aus Bibliothekskatalogen", der unter einer Creative-Commons-Attribution-Lizenz zur Verfügung steht. Herzlichen Dank dafür ans HBZ sowie an +Adrian Pohl für die Bekanntgabe über Inetbib.
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
I'd really like to use Diaspora instead of Google+. Who else?
Check out this comparison of Diaspora with G+ and facebook:
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded