Re: [dxwg] license and rights apply to Dataset not only Distribution

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