- From: fellahst via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 20:52:26 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
My two cents in this discussion, There are a number of metadata standards that assign license and rights at the dataset level. For example Project Open Data uses dct:license and dct:rights at the Dataset level. ( https://project-open-data.cio.gov/v1.1/schema/). ISO 19115 standard (including its serializations in ISO 19139 and ISO 19115-3) defines resource constraints to capture legal constraints (rights, accessRights) and security constraints. In Geoplatform profile (which is based on OGC SRIM and DCAT), we allow license and rights on the Dataset , so we can preserve the intended semantics of the resource constraints of the ISO documents and POD information that we import. We have extended the dct:RightsStatement with dct:type to classify the type of statements (Trademark, Patent,...) modeled as skos:Concept. We have also extended the model to accommodate security constraints by introducing a new class sim:SecurityConstraints which deals with classification and handling of information (however this may not be relevant for Open Data). Most of the distributions have to deal with access rights and licenses, and can overwrite the license/rights assigned at the dataset level. Keeping these properties on distribution will make the model backward compatible with DCAT 1.0, however, I truly believe we should allow license and rights at the dataset level. -- Stephane Fellah Chief Knowledge Scientist Image Matters LLC Office: +(703) 669 5510 Cell: 703 431 9420 On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:02 PM, makxdekkers <notifications@github.com> wrote: > @aisaac <https://github.com/aisaac> I guess the only thing that I am > arguing is that we need to have a strong reason to male such a change, and > we need to have clear what people should be doing in specific situations. > As I argued earlier, the message currently is very clear: licensing info > goes into Distribution. If we also put licensing information in Dataset, > implementers are surely going to ask "where should I put in?" and then > someone needs to write a guidance document to describe situations in which > you'd do one or the other, or both. If it is necessary, based on real use > cases that cannot be handled in the current approach, then it is fine with > me, but I still need to be convinced that this is really the case. I just > want to be careful not to add unnecessary complexity. > > — > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/104#issuecomment-365727901>, or mute > the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACeFLbgVzquQgtUPKRV5WW-nvCVzEI2pks5tUzu_gaJpZM4R79l5> > . > -- GitHub Notification of comment by fellahst Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/104#issuecomment-365741309 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2018 20:52:30 UTC