Re: [poe] Relation to other standard frameworks for expressing rights statements

I insist it is the same case. The DCAT documentation uses this editorial trick to include Title in their model (it's visible next to the other elements) in the case where they have not created the 'real' property in their own namespace.
Someone who would just look at the Turtle file would say, 'hey but why this stupid model doesn't give any title to datasets'? The DCAT documentation says 'well we do have a title in our model but we've been smart and re-used it from elsewhere instead of creating it ourselves'.

We've done it in DQV recently too: see for example

You could add more narrative text to the Deprecated terms Appendix as you suggest, but I feel it won't be great:
- it will not be very visible - much less visible than the editorial trick that DCAT uses.
- it will be difficult and look awkward, because not all the elements in the Deprecated terms Appendix should be treated the same way. Again some elements there are truly deprecated (not in the model anymore) while other are 'delegated' to other namespace.

So I'd really push for taking the DCAT editorial approach, which means for POE, and for the case of commercializing, that the URL
that currently appears in the instances of odrl:Action at
would now refer to a fully fledged HTML sub-section between and
This section would have the usual definition box, except that instead of having an identifier in the ODRL namespace it would have an identifier in the CC namespace.

Note that in accordance you should update the ODRL turtle file to declare cc:CommercialUse an instance of odrl:Action. Which is perfectly legit and would start to really answer my question on the mapping between CC and POE. Namely, for one of the CC permissions there is a mapping, and it is an rdf:type statement to odrl:Action.

Then ideally you may have an annex that sums up all your mappings, including the discussion on cc:License vs dcmiterms:RightsStatements vs dcmiterms:License vs odrl:Policy that has been discussed at #184. But that could be the step afterwards.

Am I making any sense?

GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 21 June 2017 10:21:51 UTC