- From: aisaac via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 09:20:06 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
I have several remarks: - we need to be careful with the wording and not hint that all CC statements are licenses. Some CC statements would end up in dct:licenses, some others in dct:rights. - using odrl:hasPolicy is handy indeed to avoid categorizing the policy more precisely. But if there's a policy that doesn't fall in dct:rights, then it doesn't help meeting our original requirements? If we don't have a requirement that extend to any kind of permissions and obligations then we don't need odrl:hasPolicy. This was the meaning of my question at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/114#issuecomment-370939538 which was unanswered. I've checked https://www.w3.org/TR/dcat-ucr/ and don't see such requirements clearly there. NB: I'm not formally against odrl:hasPolicy if there's a corresponding requirement, I'm just interested in keeping DCAT as minimal as required. -- GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/114#issuecomment-382322296 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2018 09:20:11 UTC