ISSUE-61: dct:license vs. dct:rights


dct:license vs. dct:rights

Raised by:
Richard Cyganiak
Opened on:
Last Call comment from Jeni Tennison:

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 are around attribution (I believe this is because all US government data is public domain).
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. Re: ISSUE-61 (licenseOrRights): dct:license vs. dct:rights [DCAT] (from on 2013-04-12)
  2. ISSUE-61 (licenseOrRights): dct:license vs. dct:rights [DCAT] (from on 2013-04-12)

Related notes:

Accidental duplicate of ISSUE-60

Richard Cyganiak, 12 Apr 2013, 16:48:54

Display change log ATOM feed

Chair, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <>.
$Id: 61.html,v 1.1 2014-07-10 11:36:16 carine Exp $