dcterms:rights, dcterms:accessRights, and dcterms:license in Darwin Core
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
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_Dubl...
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
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_Dubl...
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
I replied with the below only to John when it was first posted, so I guess I should have cc:ed all and take the opportunity to do that now. Its an important issue to me, for sure, and I hope to others. The solution suggested by John basically resolves the issue to my satisfaction. _________________________________________________
John -- Rights (such as a copyright) and licenses are different things - http://www.majordojo.com/2010/07/license-vs-copyright.php. One (e.g. copyright) represents right granted to an authors. The other (e.g. license) are rights granted to someone who wants to use a word or software product. Thus, I think, a need for different terms to represent those different concepts. Yes?
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:08 AM, John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:
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_Dubl...
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
This looks like a good solution to me! Thank you for staying on top of it. On Dec 29, 2013 10:08 AM, "John Wieczorek" tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:
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_Dubl...
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
participants (4)
-
Bryan -
John Wieczorek -
Robert Guralnick -
Steve Baskauf