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

Pfew this is a lot to review :-)
But this is a good sign: the progress is fast!

I will start with the vocabulary documentation at

I will check the Turtle later, also because if I do this it will probably pre-empt on the review of SKOS usage that I've promised wrt #160...

For the record I am using for CC reference the namespace doc at

Here are the comments:

1. I am not sure I see the need to group the actions 'imported' from CC in their own vocabulary at
Isn't it possible to merge them with the other actions defined by POE directly at
What makes them essentially non-normative, and 'may be used', compared to the 'native POE' actions?

2. Why is this grouping called 'collective'? I really don't understand why this word is used here. Ar these actions always collective? Other POE actions cannot be collective?

3. I wouldn't list the equivalence to deprecated resources in the sections for the CC actions. I would keep them only in the section on deprecated terms I.e. as information people who already know the deprecated terms, not as (unnecessary) information for the readers who did not know them anyway and will safely just read the 'main' sections, like
NB: this should also be represented in the Turtle too, by representing the link only *from* the deprecated action *to* the new one, not the other way round.

4. The link between deprecated action and the replacement should probably be a SKOS matching link (skos:exactMatch or skos:closeMatch). Now it's "Equivalent Property:" but these actions are concepts, not properties.

5. I see that you have changed some definitions. E.g., "exercising rights for commercial purposes" becomes "Using the Work for commercial purposes".
But this seems fine, as the original CC definitions are rather dodgy. Actually one has 'permits' in the definition ("permits commercial derivatives, but only non-commercial distribution"), the sort of issue I had spotted for POE, but which you have since then fixed :-)
This said, cc:Attribution mentions copyright holder, and you don't: is it on purpose? I'd have thought Attribution can also be for copyright holders that are not the creators.
Also I'm not sure why cc:Distribution is not about *re-*distribution.

7. I see that Share is now mapped to cc:Distribute, but there is also cc:Sharing. And when ODRL had minted a concept for Share (odrl:share) it was precisely defined as cc:Share ("permits commercial derivatives, but only non-commercial distribution"). What has happened so that cc:Share ended up being replaced by cc:Distribute?

8. cc:Distribution mentions "distribution, public display, and publicly performance" at This seems to include also odrl:present, odrl:play, etc. Are you sure that we can restrict the definition of cc:Distribution so that it's equivalent to the deprecated odrl:share?

9. "Share A Like" should be "Share Alike" ;-)

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

Received on Thursday, 22 June 2017 10:04:48 UTC