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

Re: Feedback on Dataset Schema

From: Joshua Shinavier <josh@fortytwo.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:26:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPKNUStxqyyn4wqDN+eKPHe-O+5Enjz+74wp6k-WJ1bi+EvjAQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
Cc: Leigh Dodds <ld@talis.com>, public-vocabs@w3.org
Hi John,

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:31 AM, John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we should/could follow the DCAT model here, which uses
> dc:license to refer to a dc:LicenseDocument

Well, the WebPage would implicitly be a LicenseDocument by virtue of
the fact that ds:license maps to dc:license, but there wouldn't be any
further description of the license as far as the extension is

>> 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.

I agree that a "license" property wouldn't apply to all subtypes of
CreativeWork, although it does apply to more than one type without a
common parent deeper in the type hierarchy than CreativeWork.  The
same could be said of existing CreativeWork properties like "review"
or "offers".

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

Based on Dan's comments, I would say it's there because it's not
prescriptive: it tells you who owns the thing without getting into the
terms by which you can use the thing.

>> 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...

True, it would be best not to introduce a dependency on another
extension, especially one which is unlikely to be accepted.


Received on Thursday, 12 July 2012 21:27:14 UTC

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