- From: <andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 23:41:03 +0000
- To: <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- CC: <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Thanks, Antoine. I've revised Section 9 accordingly. Preview: https://rawgit.com/w3c/dxwg/andrea-perego-dcat-sec-rights-rev/dcat/index.html#license-rights HTML diff: https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fdxwg%2Fdcat%2Findex.html&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fdxwg%2Fandrea-perego-dcat-sec-rights-rev%2Fdcat%2Findex.html#license-rights Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend either the plenary or the DCAT calls next week (I send my regrets in advance), but, maybe, this can be added in the DCAT agenda for a group review. Cheers, Andrea ---- Andrea Perego, Ph.D. Scientific / Technical Project Officer European Commission DG JRC Directorate B - Growth and Innovation Unit B6 - Digital Economy Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262 21027 Ispra VA, Italy https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/ ---- The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. ________________________________________ From: Antoine Isaac [aisaac@few.vu.nl] Sent: 29 November 2018 08:38 To: PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA) Cc: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: ACTION-86: AndreaPerego to consider if dct:accessRights should be inlcuded in DCAT (Dataset Exchange Working Group) Hi Andrea, The proposed revision sounds good to me. About 'license documents' maybe this is the opportunity to try to hide 'document'? Maybe we could use 'representation' or 'reference' as the first word, and very quickly after mention that the ideal use is with a canonical URI. I'm very well aware that 'document' or 'representation' is not ideal, but either of them seem a better choice that stretching 'document' so that it includes a conceptual resource like an ODRL Policy. But well if you remove the DC definition of dct:license then maybe this will be less of a concern. Cheers, Antoine On 28/11/2018 16:05, andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu wrote: > Thanks a lot, Antoine. > > About licences vs use conditions, I see your point. Strictly speaking, licences should be just about how you can use a resource. However, it is often the case that the same "document" includes as well other rights (access rights, copyright statements and notices, etc.). This usually applies to "custom" licences, whereas the so-called "standard" licences, designed for re-use (as the CC ones), concern instead only use conditions. And then you made an example of use conditions that are included in a "document" which explicitly states not being a licence. > > Based on this, an option would be to revise the proposed text as follows: > > - We can restore the original text, and state that dct:license is meant to be used just for "documents" denoted as licences (irrespective of whether they are just about use conditions). Here we can also recommend the use of standard licences for interoperability, and for simplifying the discovery/filtering of datasets based on their licensing conditions > - dct:accessRights should instead be used to explicitly state which are the access rights applying to the resource - which may or may be not already included in the licence above. About how to express access rights, the recommendation could be to use code lists - as the one used in DCAT-AP > - dct:rights should be used for other types of rights (copyright etc.) > > About the citations of the definitions of the relevant DC classes, I think we can safely drop them, and add an introductory text explaining the scope of dct:rights and its subproperties dct:license and dct:accessRights. > > Does this make sense? > > A side note about the notion of "licence document": IMO, here "document" can be intended in the broad sense: it can be a human-targeted document, or a machine-readable description (as an ODRL policy). And, eventually, from the point of view of discovery/filtering, the important thing is having/using a canonical URI for the licence. > > This is at least what was recognised in DCAT-AP, where the recommendation is to use the licence code list maintained by the EU Publications Office: > > http://publications.europa.eu/mdr/resource/authority/licence/html/licences-eng.html > > Cheers, > > Andrea > > ---- > Andrea Perego, Ph.D. > Scientific / Technical Project Officer > European Commission DG JRC > Directorate B - Growth and Innovation > Unit B6 - Digital Economy > Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262 > 21027 Ispra VA, Italy > > https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/ > > ---- > The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may > not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official > position of the European Commission. > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] >> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2018 10:24 PM >> To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org >> Subject: Re: ACTION-86: AndreaPerego to consider if dct:accessRights should >> be inlcuded in DCAT (Dataset Exchange Working Group) >> >> Hi Andrea, >> >> I think this is a great step in the right direction. >> >> There are a couple of things that I think may need some discussion, though >> >> 1. I'm not sure about recommending to express everything about use with >> dct:license. >> I think the sentence >> "where a statement is associated with the resource that is explicitly declared >> as a 'license', i.e., when the rights statement is only about use conditions" >> dangerously equates licenses with statements about use conditions. First, >> I'm not sure one can say a license is always about use condition. Perhaps >> more certainly, there can be statements about use issued outside of (formal) >> license, like this one: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-NC/1.0/. >> So if stating such equivalence can be avoided (i.e. it's not necessary to the >> story) I think it should be avoided. >> >> 2. Maybe you can avoid strong statements about the ranges of the Dublin >> Core properties, like >> "The object of dct:license, a dct:LicenseDocument, is "A legal document >> giving official permission to do something with a Resource." >> Of course I don't like this range assignment and what it means, i.e., it's >> dangerous to tell that URIs of licenses are always the same as URIs of their >> documents. dct:license is used all over the place with objects that do not >> count as documents. >> But anyway, the coming version of Dublin Core is going to relax the range >> assignments, and formal ranges like this one are going to disappear, being >> replace by a 'range includes' in the flavour of what Schema.org does for its >> properties. So the sentence would become wrong. >> >> The same is going to apply for the other similar sentence >> "The object of dct:accessRights is a dct:RightsStatement providing >> "Information about who can access the resource or an indication of its >> security status." >> (even though I liked the range of dct:accessRights much more ;-) ) >> >> Cheers, >> >> Antoine >> >> On 23/11/2018 00:56, andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> As Dave mentioned in [1], during the last DCAT subgroup meeting I was >> given an action [2] to propose a revision to the DCAT spec, to incorporate the >> use of dct:accessRights. >>> >>> I just did it, and submitted the revision proposal via the following PR: >> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/607 >>> >>> I tried to provide enough details about the changes I made in the PR >> description. I decided to focus only on Section 9 (License and rights >> statements), which it is exactly devoted to providing guidance on the >> specification of rights, and it is linked to from all the relevant class / property >> definitions. >>> >>> You can preview the revised version of Section 9 here: >>> >>> https://rawgit.com/w3c/dxwg/andrea-perego-dcat-sec-rights- >> rev/dcat/index.html#license-rights >>> >>> And here you can see the HTML diff highlighting the changes: >>> >>> >> https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fd >> xwg%2Fdcat%2Findex.html&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fd >> xwg%2Fandrea-perego-dcat-sec-rights-rev%2Fdcat%2Findex.html#license- >> rights >>> >>> Looking forward to your feedback >>> >>> Andrea >>> >>> PS: This revision is meant to address both ACTION-85 and ACTION-86. >>> >>> ---- >>> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg- >> wg/2018Nov/0723.html >>> [2] https://www.w3.org/2018/11/21-dxwgdcat-minutes#x04 >>> >>> ---- >>> Andrea Perego, Ph.D. >>> Scientific / Technical Project Officer >>> European Commission DG JRC >>> Directorate B - Growth and Innovation >>> Unit B6 - Digital Economy >>> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262 >>> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy >>> >>> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/ >>> >>> ---- >>> The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may >>> not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official >>> position of the European Commission. >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Dataset Exchange Working Group Issue Tracker >> [sysbot+tracker@w3.org] >>> Sent: 01 March 2018 10:21 >>> To: PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA) >>> Subject: ACTION-86: AndreaPerego to consider if dct:accessRights should >> be inlcuded in DCAT (Dataset Exchange Working Group) >>> >>> ACTION-86: AndreaPerego to consider if dct:accessRights should be >> inlcuded in DCAT (Dataset Exchange Working Group) >>> >>> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/86 >>> >>> On: Andrea Perego >>> Due: 2018-03-08 >>> Product: DCAT >>> >>> If you do not want to be notified on new action items for this group, please >> update your settings at: >>> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/users/40317#settings >>> >>> >>> >
Received on Friday, 30 November 2018 23:41:29 UTC