[cc-devel] ccREL question
mz at kl.nl
Mon Mar 9 08:34:31 EDT 2015
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?
Kennisland | www.kl.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-devel