W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-comments@w3.org > March 2016

Re: License comments

From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:52:51 -0300
Message-ID: <CANx1PzwHsKAq=44OohDvyXhfE4eNEYgd=KuV4yNw-rmpJD3ykQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Renato Iannella <r@iannel.la>
Cc: public-dwbp-comments@w3.org
Dear Renato,

First of all, we'd like to thank you for your comments and suggestions! We
made some updates on the current version of our BP for data licenses and
I'd like to ask your feedback about that [1].

We also have some comments about your questions:


> It is important to clearly define the ways that licenses work on the Web.
> 1 - A link (URI) to a human-readable license (and possible
> community-defined values)
> 2 - A link/embedded machine-readable license
>

We changed the text to be more explicit about this: "Data license
information can be provided as a link to a human-readable license or as a
link/embedded machine-readable license."


> In the "Possible Approach” section you mention 4 vocabs that include
> properties for linking (Case 1 above).
> Wouldn’t it be more useful to list the actual properties than a link to
> the entire vocab?
>

We included the specific properties.



> Note that CC does not provide a linking property (CC uses xhtm;:license or
> dc:license etc)
>

The Creative Commons Rights Expression Language has a property called
cc:license. We refer to this property in our doc. Is it ok for you?



> The reference for CC points to CCRel, when in fact, it should refer to the
> CC license URL set:
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
>

In this case, I think it is correct because we are talking about
machine-readable version of the license metadata. We can also include a lnk
to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ when we mention the human-readable
version of the license metadata.


>
> The CC license URLs are examples of the _values_ for the properties for
> Case 1 above.
>

yes! I agree.


The second part lists 3 machine readable rights languages.
> Note that ODRL is the “Open Digital Rights Language” not "Open Data Rights
> Language”
>

Fixed ;)


>
> Example 6 shows a "Machine-readable" example.
> But seems to only show a link to a CC fixed license URL, not one of the
> listed 3 machine readable rights languages?
>

The idea is to show how to describe the license metadata of a given dataset
in a machine-readable way instead of showing how to describe the license
itself. In this case, we use dct:license to link to an existing
human-readable license (Case 1 of your message).


> Example 6 then shows a “Human-readable” example.
> But it only has a link to an example showing the full description of a
> distribution?
> (I would expect it to show a human-readable license)
>

This is the same case is described above. The difference here is that the
license metadata is available on the human-readable version of the
metadata, i.e., an html page.


Thanks a lot!

Cheers,
Bernadette

[1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#licenses


> Cheers
>
> Renato
>
>
>
>


-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2016 16:53:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 29 March 2016 16:53:44 UTC