Fix the overlap between how the ‘AccessRestriction’ (5.2), ‘UseRestriction’ (5.38) and ‘RightsStatement’ (5.36) classes are defined/intended for use

sofianef commented 11 months ago

Name: Mike Shallcross

Affiliation: ICPSR, shallcro@umich.edu

Type of issue: Schema, Editorial

Section # / Table #: 5.2, 5.36, 5.38

Issue:

Comment: There appears to be some overlap between how the ‘AccessRestriction’ (5.2), ‘UseRestriction’ (5.38) and ‘RightsStatement’ (5.36) classes are defined/intended for use. For instance, 'RightsStatement' is "A statement about the intellectual property rights (IPR) held in or over a resource, a legal document giving official permission to do something with a resource, or a statement about access rights" and a UseRestriction "may encompass limitations on access."
Rationale: Having classes/properties with potential overlap could confuse users and result in local conventions that prevent metadata interoperability and standardization.
Proposed Disposition: Clarify the definitions or provide additional usage notes to help users understand when one class/property should be employed instead of another.

Original email submission: ICPSR_FAIRness.Project.-.DCAT-US-3-AP.-.Comment.Review.Matrix.xlsx

hkdctol commented 9 months ago

There appear to be multiple issues getting at the same fields--we should discuss

fellahst commented 9 months ago

A section for legal metadata in usage guideline has been added in the specification. This section can be used as starting point for discussion and review by legal experts.

DOI-DO / dcat-us

Fix the overlap between how the ‘AccessRestriction’ (5.2), ‘UseRestriction’ (5.38) and ‘RightsStatement’ (5.36) classes are defined/intended for use #144