In the scope of implementing HVD support to the Czech catalog, also related to #253, I ran into a question of how the mapping to the EU License NAL should actually look like. I want to use SKOS, and I followed the examples in DCAT-AP HVD, but still, the exact expected usage is a bit unclear, and it basically boils down to the question of how the CC licences are hierarchically ordered using SKOS?
Is CC0 broader or narrower than CC BY 4.0? The EU NAL does not contain this hierarchy.
The DCAT-AP HVD examples now presume that I can use skos:exactMatch from a local license definition to the EU NAL. However, if I could do that, I could as well use the EU NAL directly. The problem is that I cannot do that. I can either use skos:closeMatch to a certain degree, based on effects on the reuser, or skos:broadMatch or skos:narrowMatch - but here I am not sure of the expected direction.
To give a specific example, one of the options in Czechia is to say that a distribution is not affected by any intellectual property rights. The effect on the reuser is the same as the distribution being licensed by CC0. But CC0 presumes that there is something to license. Which is not the case here. Therefore, I could say that this case is even more permissive than CC0 (and here I am not sure of the direction), or that it is a close match (similar effects, but not exactly the same).
Answer to this question may also affect the upcoming HVD reporting, as the license should be at least as permissive as CC BY 4.0 and the fulfillment of this requirement will, I presume, have be part of the report, and therefore based on the mapping. And, if I say that a distribution is skos:closeMatch <cc-by-4.0>, it is unclear whether it fulfills the criterion or not. That is why I would rather use skos:broadMatch or skos:narrowMatch, which makes it clear.
In the scope of implementing HVD support to the Czech catalog, also related to #253, I ran into a question of how the mapping to the EU License NAL should actually look like. I want to use SKOS, and I followed the examples in DCAT-AP HVD, but still, the exact expected usage is a bit unclear, and it basically boils down to the question of how the CC licences are hierarchically ordered using SKOS?
Is CC0 broader or narrower than CC BY 4.0? The EU NAL does not contain this hierarchy.
The DCAT-AP HVD examples now presume that I can use
skos:exactMatchfrom a local license definition to the EU NAL. However, if I could do that, I could as well use the EU NAL directly. The problem is that I cannot do that. I can either useskos:closeMatchto a certain degree, based on effects on the reuser, orskos:broadMatchorskos:narrowMatch- but here I am not sure of the expected direction.To give a specific example, one of the options in Czechia is to say that a distribution is not affected by any intellectual property rights. The effect on the reuser is the same as the distribution being licensed by CC0. But CC0 presumes that there is something to license. Which is not the case here. Therefore, I could say that this case is even more permissive than CC0 (and here I am not sure of the direction), or that it is a close match (similar effects, but not exactly the same).
Answer to this question may also affect the upcoming HVD reporting, as the license should be at least as permissive as CC BY 4.0 and the fulfillment of this requirement will, I presume, have be part of the report, and therefore based on the mapping. And, if I say that a distribution is
skos:closeMatch <cc-by-4.0>, it is unclear whether it fulfills the criterion or not. That is why I would rather useskos:broadMatchorskos:narrowMatch, which makes it clear.