- From: aisaac via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 12:49:49 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@makxdekkers I'm not a lawyer but I've heard pretty clearly that many of the things that I would have a couple of years ago considered to be ok for dct:license are actually not licenses and as a member of rightsstatements.org I have to echo this concern. On the first point, my proposal is not that the caveat could be understood as people doing it wrong. On the contrary, it would be a blessing for ignoring the strict semantics of DC - i.e. people can continue doing as they can even if some people tell that DC has a slightly different semantics for the property. For the first point, I had understood your proposal actually. And to me either dc:rights or odrl:hasPolicy would be ok (if ODRL still considers that odrl:hasPolicy can be seen as a superproperty of dct:rights). I just want to make sure that the others on this thread are ok with having DCAT rely two properties. -- GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/114#issuecomment-370409007 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 5 March 2018 12:49:51 UTC