Hi all,
I am working with a collections of international heritage institutions
(Europeana and DPLA) that wants to make a clearer classification of in
copyright right works. Basically we want to create a neutral namespace based on
the Europeana Rights Statements
(http://pro.europeana.eu/share-your-data/rights-statement-guidelines/available-rights-statements
<http://pro.europeana.eu/share-your-data/rights-statement-guidelines/available-rights-statements>).
Mapping this space of restrictions helps re-users find the niches in which
they still use the tagged works and know when works will become available for
re-use.
The group is now designing the underlying metadata of these rights statements
and are researching the use of ccREL. They have some trouble with the
definition of cc:License. Included below I paraphrase their critique. I’m
wondering if there is still anyone on this list that can provide some valuable
feedback on this.
> [..] cc:License really strongly hints at "real" licenses, while CC has a
> broader interpretation ("a set of requests/permissions to users of a Work,
> e.g. a copyright license, the public domain, information for distributors”.)
> and uses it also for Public Domain Mark
> (https://github.com/creativecommons/license.rdf/tree/master/cc/licenserdf/licenses
>
> <https://github.com/creativecommons/license.rdf/tree/master/cc/licenserdf/licenses>,
> PDM at
> https://github.com/creativecommons/license.rdf/blob/master/cc/licenserdf/licenses/creativecommons.org_publicdomain_mark_1.0_.rdf
>
> <https://github.com/creativecommons/license.rdf/blob/master/cc/licenserdf/licenses/creativecommons.org_publicdomain_mark_1.0_.rdf>)
> This may make the choice of cc:License less natural for our audience of data
> providers and re-users.
> The CC REL RDFS <http://creativecommons.org/schema.rdf> is also a bit
> contradictory, as cc:License is described as a subclass of
> dmci:LicenseDocument, which feel wrong because dmci:LicenseDocument seems
> more restrictive than cc:License (cc:License should just be a subclass or
> equivalent class to dcmi:RightsStatement)
>
> We sense that dcterms:RightsStatements is a better fit, but want to clarify
> ccREL approach.
>
> Related work:
> ODRL uses odrl:Policy (https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/model/2.1/#section-2
> <https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/model/2.1/#section-2>)
> ODRS uses odrs:RightsStatement. Interestingly ODRS de-couple statements from
> license, i.e. it seems that in most case one needs one instance of each
> class, see
> https://github.com/theodi/open-data-licensing/blob/master/guides/publisher-guide.md
>
> <https://github.com/theodi/open-data-licensing/blob/master/guides/publisher-guide.md>)
>
What does the list suggest we do in this project? Should we adopt CC:License or
is it better to use odrs:RightsStatement or odrl:policy?
Cheers,
Maarten Zeinstra
--
Kennisland | www.kl.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra
_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
