- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:48:27 +0100
- To: Government Linked Data Working Group <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Oops, I must have hit some button twice so Tracker raised the same issue again. I'm deleting it; sorry for the noise. Richard On 12 Apr 2013, at 17:46, Government Linked Data Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > ISSUE-61 (licenseOrRights): dct:license vs. dct:rights [DCAT] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/61 > > Raised by: Richard Cyganiak > On product: DCAT > > Last Call comment from Jeni Tennison: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013Apr/0001.html > > [[[ > In Europe, data publishers have both copyright and database rights over the data that they publish, and may have to reference more than one licence as a result. In addition, there is often extra information that supplements the licence to enable reusers to fulfil it, such as the attribution that they have to provide when they reuse. Having a single link to a licence and not having a mechanism to give this supplementary information might be too simplistic. > > So, I wonder whether it would be better to incorporate dct:rights than dct:license, and link to a rights statement that would include licensing and attribution information both for the copyright and for the database right if there is one. > > I note that in CKAN the link to the licence uses the relation dct:rights. The only things related to licensing in data.gov are around attribution (I believe this is because all US government data is public domain). > ]]] > > >
Received on Friday, 12 April 2013 16:48:48 UTC