Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

licenseDocument #34

Closed
bertvannuffelen opened this issue Dec 21, 2017 · 7 comments
Closed

licenseDocument #34

bertvannuffelen opened this issue Dec 21, 2017 · 7 comments

Comments

@bertvannuffelen
Copy link
Contributor

Hi,

In the context of the Flemish Open Data portal we would like to have advice on the creation of a specific instance of a license document.

Q: Is there a LicenseDocument vocabulary which allows to describe a license document by extending an existing license with instances of clauses?

The example case is as follows: the Flemish government has defined 2 licenses which state in short: you can use the data if you
a) mention the source, or
b) pay a fee

Now we would like to create a license document that instantiates the general license document with the specific name of the source (or the fee).

Pointers to how we best address this topic are welcome.

Bert

@giorgialodi
Copy link

Hi Bert,
in Italy we created a license vocabulary (reusing part of the controlled vocabulary mentioned in the current DCAT-AP specifications). The licenses we included are those currently used in the Italian open data catalogues we harvest.
You can find the vocabulary here: https://github.com/italia/daf-ontologie-vocabolari-controllati/tree/master/VocabolariControllati/Licenze (there are labels in ITA, ENG, DEU, FRA).

@makxdekkers
Copy link
Contributor

makxdekkers commented Feb 4, 2018

@bertvannuffelen The same issue was brought up on Joinup a year ago.
The ODI's Open Data Rights Statement Vocabulary has two properties, attributionText and attributionURL that could be used.
As to the fee, I remember a discussion on that issue during the development of DCAT-AP where it was decided that paid-for datasets were out of scope. An existing approach is available at schema.org which does not make price a property of a resource, but connects the resource and its price through an intermediate entity Offer.
The Working Group should discuss whether attribution text and price specification are to be considered for a future version of DCAT-AP

@bertvannuffelen
Copy link
Contributor Author

@giorgialodi, thanks for the pointer.
@makxdekkers: this is an interesting reference. I found in https://creativecommons.org/ns a vocabulary however the cc:attributionName is associated with work and not with the license as a clause.
I have a look to the ODRS to see if this matches better our intentions.

kr
Bert

@DGatt
Copy link

DGatt commented Mar 5, 2018

Germany did just the same as Italy (http://www.dcat-ap.de/def/licenses/). Maybe an indicator that such a thing could be useful on the European level.
The German application profile also introduced licenseAttributionByText as a property of the distribution. Personally, I feel that something like a Rights Statement (ODRS) - as a resource that describes the relationship between a Dataset and its Licence(s), and is also used to describe additional contextual information that applies to the re-use of a dataset - is the way forward.

@makxdekkers
Copy link
Contributor

makxdekkers commented Mar 5, 2018

There is also an Licence NAL at the Publications Office: http://publications.europa.eu/mdr/authority/licence/. There is currently no link to this NAL in DCAT-AP v1.1, but it could be included in a new version.

@makxdekkers
Copy link
Contributor

Proposed resolution | No change.

@NatasaSofou
Copy link
Contributor

No change. Note discussion at DXWG, see: w3c/dxwg#114

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants