Open sabinem opened 3 years ago
The part concerning the controlled vocabulary will be deal with in a separated issue https://github.com/opendata-swiss/dcat_ap_ch/issues/184
Our current state on dct:licence vs. dct:rights is the following, interpreting dcat2:
dct:license
A legal document under which the resource is made available.
-> Should be the the legal text which does back the creation or publishing of a dataset. -> Potentially a link to the Legal text.
dct:rights
A statement that concerns all rights not addressed with dct:license or dct:accessRights, such as copyright statements.
-> is the license in regard of "copyright licence" as stated in the text.
@l00mi Thank you! We mainly refer to DCAT-AP:
licence: This property refers to the licence under which the Distribution is made available. --> for the federal level it will link to the https://opendata.swiss/de/terms-of-use, since these should be understood as the official "translation" of the legal basis. Plus it's also more similar to what for instance data.europe.eu and especially users expects to receive. For other levels it should be used to refer to "standard" licenses (for instance Creative Commons licences)
rights: This property refers to a statement that specifies rights associated with the Distribution. --> this field can complement with more information on the legal framework related to data
Okay, quickly reading the text from https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/semantic-interoperability-community-semic/solution/dcat-application-profile-data-portals-europe/distribution/dcat-ap-200-pdf it seems its very ambiguous, and I fear here we are interpreting, through the intermediary DCAT-AP, the meaning exactly the wrong way around.
But I trust there are examples of other DCAT-AP catalogs implementing it already the way proposed above?
Anyway I think the more important part is to decide on https://github.com/opendata-swiss/dcat_ap_ch/issues/184, the property can be changed easily in any future. But to align different Texts to a Controlled Vocabulary will be difficult.
@l00mi, thanks for your comments:
But I trust there are examples of other DCAT-AP catalogs implementing it already the way proposed
Since is an important and difficult topic, we were looking for role models regarding this. We decided to take the German implementation as a role model, see http://dcat-ap.de/def/licenses
I see, so I rest my case on the base of the DCAT itself. Then we should make sure to add a clearer description then it was done on the EU level.
The DCAT Standard will be used for I14Y.admin.ch which is expected to publish non-public datasets too. I expect many of these datasets wont be able to publish a license in advance. The license may depend on the dataset user, and may be subject to individual negotiations.
Property: dct:license Class: dcat:Distribution Conformance Problem: Currently in DCAT-AP CH
dct:license
is optional ondcat:Distribtuion
. This does not conform to DCAT-AP where it is recommend. Details:dct:rights
cannot replacedct:license
but just complement it, see https://github.com/opendata-swiss/dcat_ap_ch/issues/110Proposal: There are two proposals:
dct:license
should not only be recommended but mandatory ondcat:Distribution
.