W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > July 2012

Re: Feedback on Dataset Schema

From: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:31:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CAC1Gg8SDjNTv5CDr+Az59KzbxzTXfLD3=5+VUKgZw-hrC4hx_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leigh Dodds <ld@talis.com>
Cc: Joshua Shinavier <josh@fortytwo.net>, public-vocabs@w3.org
Josh & Leigh, thanks for bringing up the license issue...My comments
are specific to that, so I've cropped the thread and inserted comments

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Leigh Dodds <ld@talis.com> wrote:
> ...
> On 12 July 2012 10:39, Joshua Shinavier <josh@fortytwo.net> wrote:
>> ...
>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Leigh Dodds <ld@talis.com> wrote:
>>> I note that the table in the wiki refers to ds:license but this is not called out anywhere.
>> Currently, the idea is simply to point to a WebPage about the license, but I'm open to other suggestions.
> I think thats probably sufficient. Most licenses have a clear destination page. Would be nice to have the property documented and an example added.

I think we should/could follow the DCAT model here, which uses
dc:license to refer to a dc:LicenseDocument

> Sorry, I realise my comment wasn't clear. I meant: should a generic license property be part of core schema.org, e.g. as a property of CreativeWork, rather than be specific to this extension?

I think CreativeWork is intended to be high level, to be extended by a
rich and growing set of specific types (including Datasets). One might
argue that the notion of "license" doesn't apply to all such
specializations of creative work, and each specialization should add
rights vocabulary that suits them best.

That said, CopyrightHolder *does* appear at the CreativeWork level;
RightsHolder would have been better...

>>> License might usefully be captured as an enumeration of, e.g. Creative Commons and Open Government licenses.
>> This sounds like a job for a License extension.  Any takers?  At present, the closest equivalent appears to be the copyrightHolder and copyrightYear properties.
> Yes, perhaps that's the best option. There's already a general licensing vocabulary created by the Creative Commons, perhaps that would be a suitable basis for such an extension?

I "vote" for a simple solution in the spirit of dc:license and not for
constrained lists. If someone wants to create a "License" extension or
even a "Legal" extension that introduces legalese into the mix, that's
fine, but Datasets or other CreativeWork-based extensions shouldn't
depend on it...

John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
Director, Web Science Operations
Tetherless World Constellation (RPI)
<http://tw.rpi.edu> <olyerickson@gmail.com>
Twitter & Skype: olyerickson
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2012 12:32:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:48:47 UTC