ISSUE-60: dct:license vs. dct:rights
licenseOrRights
dct:license vs. dct:rights
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- DCAT
- Raised by:
- Richard Cyganiak
- Opened on:
- 2013-04-12
- Description:
- Last Call comment from Jeni Tennison:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013Apr/0001.html
[[[
In Europe, data publishers have both copyright and database rights over the data that they publish, and may have to reference more than one licence as a result. In addition, there is often extra information that supplements the licence to enable reusers to fulfil it, such as the attribution that they have to provide when they reuse. Having a single link to a licence and not having a mechanism to give this supplementary information might be too simplistic.
So, I wonder whether it would be better to incorporate dct:rights than dct:license, and link to a rights statement that would include licensing and attribution information both for the copyright and for the database right if there is one.
I note that in CKAN the link to the licence uses the relation dct:rights. The only things related to licensing in data.gov are around attribution (I believe this is because all US government data is public domain).
]]] - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- DCAT ISSUE-60 (from mail@makxdekkers.com on 2013-05-16)
- ISSUE-60 (licenseOrRights): dct:license vs. dct:rights [DCAT] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2013-04-12)
Related notes:
Question: Are we restricted to one or the other for the vocab? Why can't providers have a choice between either?
Failing that: dcterms:rights is ALWAYS application, but dcterms:license is not, thus we can choose dcterms:rights and then dcterms:license can be an optional choice by providers
Regarding https://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/60 ...
After "doing my homework" a bit on this, I believe we have little
choice but to make dct:rights the preferred recommendation, and to
allow dct:license as a option for providers to "refine" dct:rights.
By my reading, dct:rights may be either a literal or a URL to a
RightsStatement whereas dct:license must be a LicenseDocument. Thus
dct:rights is more flexible and captures various interpretations,
while dct:license is only valid when there is actual a LicenseDocument
(and where the notion of a license is appropriate).
All of this, plus JeniT recommends we do it this way ;)
References:
[1] dct:rights http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-license
[2] dct:license http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-license
UPDATE: No one has responded positively or negatively to my comment/suggestion of 03 May. I say we adopt my suggestion:
* declare dct:rights the preferred recommendation
* allow dct:license as a option for providers to "refine" dct:rights
dct:rights should not be used with a literal, at least according to what DCMI says about it at http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/User_Guide/Publishing_Metadata#dcterms:rights.
Makx Dekkers, 16 May 2013, 17:39:27implemented in the Spec now
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013May/0013.html
Display change log
