- From: makxdekkers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 12:32:04 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@aisaac I have not gone into the question whether a rights statement can legally count as a licence. I am not a lawyer so I can't say anything about that. To be honest, I don't understand your first bullet point about `dct:license` targeting documents and not statements. As far as I see it, there is a very fine line between "document" and "statement". An unwanted effect of a caveat could be that people read it as "you've been doing it wrong", so it would need to be carefully worded. On the second bullet point, I think my proposal was clear, saying that the `odrl:hasPolicy `should be used if the object is an `odrl:Policy`, so not using `dct:license` in that case. For linking to the rightstatements.org resources, would your suggestion be to use `dct:rights` in that case? After all, the definition of `[dct:rights](http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-rights)` is "_Information about rights held in and over the resource_", or as the [Usage note in DCAT](https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#Property:distribution_rights) states: "_dct:license, which is a sub-property of dct:rights, can be used to link a distribution to a license document. However, dct:rights allows linking to a rights statement that can include licensing information as well as other information that supplements the licence such as attribution_". Sounds clear to me. -- GitHub Notification of comment by makxdekkers Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/114#issuecomment-370405088 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 5 March 2018 12:32:13 UTC