W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > July 2012

Re: Feedback on Dataset Schema

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:32:00 +0100
Message-ID: <4FFFDD00.1020305@w3.org>
To: Joshua Shinavier <josh@fortytwo.net>
CC: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>, Leigh Dodds <ld@talis.com>, public-vocabs@w3.org


On 12/07/2012 22:26, Joshua Shinavier wrote:
> Hi John,
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:31 AM, John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> I think we should/could follow the DCAT model here, which uses
>> dc:license to refer to a dc:LicenseDocument
>
>
> Well, the WebPage would implicitly be a LicenseDocument by virtue of
> the fact that ds:license maps to dc:license, but there wouldn't be any
> further description of the license as far as the extension is
> concerned.

ADMS uses dcterms:license and dcterms:LicenseDocument and then uses 
dcterms:type to identify, well, the type of licence - and then provides 
a controlled list of values for that. That's a very ADMS-specific thing 
and not something that I'd expect to see replicated in all similar 
vocabularies.

>
>
>
>>> Sorry, I realise my comment wasn't clear. I meant: should a generic license property be part of core schema.org, e.g. as a property of CreativeWork, rather than be specific to this extension?
>>
>> I think CreativeWork is intended to be high level, to be extended by a
>> rich and growing set of specific types (including Datasets). One might
>> argue that the notion of "license" doesn't apply to all such
>> specializations of creative work, and each specialization should add
>> rights vocabulary that suits them best.
>
>
> I agree that a "license" property wouldn't apply to all subtypes of
> CreativeWork, although it does apply to more than one type without a
> common parent deeper in the type hierarchy than CreativeWork.  The
> same could be said of existing CreativeWork properties like "review"
> or "offers".

+1


>
>
>
>> That said, CopyrightHolder *does* appear at the CreativeWork level;
>> RightsHolder would have been better...
>
>
> Based on Dan's comments, I would say it's there because it's not
> prescriptive: it tells you who owns the thing without getting into the
> terms by which you can use the thing.

This didn't come up with ADMS since in all our use cases the publisher 
was also the owner. Given the much broader meaning of Creative Work it 
seems sensible to include it here although I agree that RightsHolder is 
better than CopyrightHolder.

>
>
>
>>> Yes, perhaps that's the best option. There's already a general licensing vocabulary created by the Creative Commons, perhaps that would be a suitable basis for such an extension?
>>
>> I "vote" for a simple solution in the spirit of dc:license and not for
>> constrained lists. If someone wants to create a "License" extension or
>> even a "Legal" extension that introduces legalese into the mix, that's
>> fine, but Datasets or other CreativeWork-based extensions shouldn't
>> depend on it...

+1

>
>
> True, it would be best not to introduce a dependency on another
> extension, especially one which is unlikely to be accepted.

Dependencies are where standards go to die...

Phil


-- 


Phil Archer
W3C eGovernment
http://www.w3.org/egov/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1
Received on Friday, 13 July 2012 08:32:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 July 2012 08:32:34 GMT