Re: GeoDCAT-AP: Call for public review

Hi Andrea,

On 9/15/15 7:18 AM, Andrea Perego wrote:
> Hi, Antoine.
>> [snip]
>> That's probably the core of the problem: I can understand the distinction
>> between the two levels (license for use and access rights) but the data that
>> you get in the ISO field (with the mixture of free text and URL) would only
>> fit the semantics of the less specific dc:rights. Unless you expunge the
>> free text and just keep the URL, which then fits the use of dcterms:license.
> Just to check if I understood your point:
> Do you mean that dct:license can be used only with a URI pointing to
> the licence itself, and if we have just text we must use dc:rights?
> Or rather it is the wording of the text ("Reuse is athorised etc.")
> that does not fit the specific notion of "licence"?

Maybe somewhere in-between...

The point was that the DC guidelines mentioned in GeoDCAT-AP itself [1] - and I believe, the definition of dct:license - point to dct:license being (at least, preferably) used with a URI.
Especially, it looks very awkward to use dct:license with a text value that mixes free text *and* a URI, which would be otherwise a perfectly valid value for a 'clean' dct:license statement. I may actually be more comfortable with a pure free text value, than with this mixture.

In fact the current example (I paste it again [2]) reads a bit as if one would create the statement:

dbpedia:DavidCopperfield dct:creator "The creator of this book is the entity described at" .



[] dcat:distribution [ a dcat:Distribution ;
       dct:license [ a dct:LicenseDocument ;
         rdfs:label "Reuse is authorised according to the European Commission
legal notice at"@en ] ;
       dct:accessRights [ a dct:RightsStatement ;
         rdfs:label "no limitation"@en ] ] .

Received on Friday, 18 September 2015 13:00:33 UTC