This looks like a good solution to me! Thank you for staying on top of it.
Dear all,
There doesn't seem to be a great deal of interest in this topic based
on the feedback so far. Yet, we have a situation in Darwin Core that
results in an error in schema validation [1] and which must be
resolved. With this message I would like to formally open the 30-day
public commentary period for the solution proposed below. A lack of
dissenting opinion within those 30 days will be taken as a consensus
in favor, after which the solution will be taken to the Executive
Committee for a vote on ratification.
I propose to deprecate the recommendation to use of dcterms:rights in
Darwin Core in favor of using dcterms:license, which a) better fits
the original intention (see comment at [2]), b) resolves the schema
issue, and [3] permits the continued use of the term
dcterms:accessRights in Darwin Core. The new term has a range
dcterms:LicenseDoument, as Steve pointed out, and this could be
satisfied with URL's pointing to license documents, such as the one in
the existing commentary
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) - see precedent at
[3].
Cheers,
John
[1] Bob Morris' issue #196;
https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=196
[2] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#dcterms:rights
[3] http://oeg-dev.dia.fi.upm.es/licensius/blog/?q=node/6
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Steve Baskauf
<steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
> In the context of developing the DwC RDF Guide and trying to maintain
> consistency with Audubon Core, I have written on the subject of various
> license-related terms [1]. In particular, I discuss the implications of
> various subproperty relationships that have been asserted for several common
> license-related terms, such as cc:license, xhv:license, and dcterms:license.
> I should note that the issue that Bob brings up also applies to
> dcterms:license because dcterms:license is rdfs:subPropertyOf
> dcterms:rights. [2] So suggesting a license URI as a value for
> dcterms:rights can't be "wrong" because a reasoner could infer that triple
> anyway based on the subproperty relationship.
>
> An additional issue is the fact that the range of dcterms:license is
> dcterms:LicenseDocument, a non-literal class. [2] So it would be best to
> NOT use that term with a string literal. In the RDF Guide[3], we recommend
> using legacy dc: namespace terms (where they exist) with literal values [4]
> in cases where DCMI declares non-literal ranges for dcterms: namespace
> terms. Unfortunately, there is no dc: namespace analogue for
> dcterms:license. Because dcterms:license was not part of Darwin Core when
> the guide was written, there is no suggestion for a literal value analogue
> to dcterms:license in the guide itself. But following the lead of Audubon
> Core, the ancillary document [1] suggests that the term xmpRights:UsageTerms
> could be used as a literal value alternative to dcterms:license. I would be
> interested in hearing opinions about whether this suggestion is appropriate
> or not. The ancillary document is informative and not part of any standard
> so it can easily be changed to reflect any consensus about what we consider
> to be a best practice.
>
> Steve
>
> [1] http://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/LicenseProperties
> [2] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-license
> [3] http://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdfGuideProposal
> [4]
> http://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdfGuideProposal#3.3_Imported_Dublin_Core_terms_that_have_non-literal_objects_and
>
> John Wieczorek wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Bob Morris recently submitted an issue [1] to the Darwin Core code
>> site showing a potential ambiguity in the inclusion from Dublin Core
>> of both dcterms:rights and dcterms:accessRights in the Simple Darwin
>> Core schema [2]. The ambiguity arises from the fact that
>> dcterms:accessRights is actually a subclass of dcterms:rights.
>>
>> Looking at the Darwin Core documentation about the use of these terms,
>> I noticed that dcterms:rights [3] suggests a license
>> ("http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/") as an example. I
>> think this example is an inappropriate use for the term and instead is
>> an example of a dcterms:license.
>>
>> I think it would be a good idea to add dcterms:license to the list of
>> terms promoted by Darwin Core, especially after reading Peter Desmet's
>> blog posts [4, 5]. If license was indeed the intent for including
>> dcterms:rights in the first place, then perhaps it can be deprecated,
>> leaving only its subtype dcterms:accessRights.
>>
>> Discussion welcome, so that I know whether to submit an issue for
>> these changes to the Darwin Core.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> John
>>
>> [1] https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=196
>> [2] https://darwincore.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/xsd/tdwg_dwc_simple.xsd
>> [3] http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#dcterms:rights
>> [4] http://peterdesmet.com/posts/illegal-bullfrogs.html
>> [5]
>> http://www.canadensys.net/2012/why-we-should-publish-our-data-under-cc0
>> _______________________________________________
>> tdwg-content mailing list
>> tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
>> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
> Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
>
> postal mail address:
> PMB 351634
> Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
>
> delivery address:
> 2125 Stevenson Center
> 1161 21st Ave., S.
> Nashville, TN 37235
>
> office: 2128 Stevenson Center
> phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 322-4942
> If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.
> http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu
>
>
_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content