Re: ODRL target/Dublin Core license/rights


On  2013-Jul-29, at 05:38, Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com> wrote:

> 
> On 29 Jul 2013, at 00:34, Mo McRoberts <mo.mcroberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> 2. In either case, which of dcterms:license or dcterms:rights is more applicable?
>> 
>> dcterms:license is defined as
>> A legal document giving official permission to do something with the resource.?
>> 
>> Meanwhile, dcterms:rights is defined as
>> Typically, rights information includes a statement about various property rights associated with the resource, including intellectual property rights.?
> 
> Given these definitions, I would say dct:license is not appropriate, and dct:rights is narrower than what we really want.
> 
> Since ODRL is a _policy_ language, we now support a broader expression of rules (such as a Privacy statement)
> 
> We did provide some feedback to the W3C Media Ontology group in this respect for policy properties (over pure copyright properties) [1].
> 
> Perhaps all we can do is define/use our target property and (using SKOS) state that this is broader than dtc:rights/license?

Well, while we could ? and in effect we'd *kind of* be doing that, I'd be quite keen to permit the use of dct:rights/dct:license (possibly both) where it's appropriate to use those predicates in particular, simply because they're relatively widespread terms beyond ODRL.

i.e., where the ODRL policy fits the definition of a 'Rights document' or a 'License document' as defined by Dublin Core (and we should probably look at inserting the appropriate superclass relationships into the model accordingly), then consider it valid to use dct:rights or dct:license. In other situations, in the absence of any other obvious predicate with that directionality, one must use odrl:target instead.

(On that basis, I guess I'm suggesting the answer to my question #2 is 'both', but that there are situations where neither is applicable)

M.

-- 
Mo McRoberts - Analyst - BBC Archive Development,
Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA,
MC3 D6, Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TQ,
0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E



-----------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and 
may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in 
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the 
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender 
immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails 
sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to 
this.
-----------------------------

Forwarded message 1

  • From: Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk>
  • Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:29:38 +0000
  • Subject: Re: ODRL target/Dublin Core license/rights
  • To: Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>
  • CC: "<public-odrl@w3.org> Group" <public-odrl@w3.org>
  • Message-ID: <A0949CB9-2570-430B-9D61-66FBFED3D13E@bbc.co.uk>
On  2013-Jul-29, at 05:38, Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com> wrote:

> 
> On 29 Jul 2013, at 00:34, Mo McRoberts <mo.mcroberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> 2. In either case, which of dcterms:license or dcterms:rights is more applicable?
>> 
>> dcterms:license is defined as
>> A legal document giving official permission to do something with the resource.?
>> 
>> Meanwhile, dcterms:rights is defined as
>> Typically, rights information includes a statement about various property rights associated with the resource, including intellectual property rights.?
> 
> Given these definitions, I would say dct:license is not appropriate, and dct:rights is narrower than what we really want.
> 
> Since ODRL is a _policy_ language, we now support a broader expression of rules (such as a Privacy statement)
> 
> We did provide some feedback to the W3C Media Ontology group in this respect for policy properties (over pure copyright properties) [1].
> 
> Perhaps all we can do is define/use our target property and (using SKOS) state that this is broader than dtc:rights/license?

Well, while we could — and in effect we'd *kind of* be doing that, I'd be quite keen to permit the use of dct:rights/dct:license (possibly both) where it's appropriate to use those predicates in particular, simply because they're relatively widespread terms beyond ODRL.

i.e., where the ODRL policy fits the definition of a 'Rights document' or a 'License document' as defined by Dublin Core (and we should probably look at inserting the appropriate superclass relationships into the model accordingly), then consider it valid to use dct:rights or dct:license. In other situations, in the absence of any other obvious predicate with that directionality, one must use odrl:target instead.

(On that basis, I guess I'm suggesting the answer to my question #2 is 'both', but that there are situations where neither is applicable)

M.

-- 
Mo McRoberts - Analyst - BBC Archive Development,
Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA,
MC3 D6, Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TQ,
0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E

Received on Monday, 29 July 2013 07:30:38 UTC