- From: aisaac via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 11:11:41 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Hi @makxdekkers this is a good reading of the ODRL discussion, but I think it's incomplete in the sense that it wasn't only about a matter of permissions/duties/restrictions but also about whether a rights statements can legally count as a license of not. Using dct:license has two drawbacks to me, with different levels of problems: - The first is the fact that dct:license targets documents and not statements. If we say that dct:licenses can be used with licenses and not license documents, then we're blessing the practice of using it with a slightly different semantics than DC's one. I'm actually fine with this (rather than saying that everyone else is wrong) but we probably should have a small caveat in our specs then. - the next issue is whether we allow the use of dct:license with non-license resources like all the ones at http://rightsstatements.org/en/statements/ or with instances of odrl:Policy in general. This would be a big change to the DC semantics. In fact I am not sure that you are suggesting this. Are you? But if you are not, then we're left with the issue of having in DCAT both a dct:license and a property to link to non-licenses (dct:rights, or odrl:hasPolicy). Would having two such options be alright? Or should we have DCAT rights strictly restricted to legal licenses (which is probably acceptable but I cannot see all implications of this)? -- GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/114#issuecomment-370386922 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 5 March 2018 11:11:45 UTC