[cc-devel] ccREL question

[Maarten Zeinstra]

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.
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

[Mike Linksvayer]

Post by Maarten Zeinstra
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?

dcterms:RightsStatement

IIRC CC stuck with license/License for PDM when that was introduced so
that the (mostly theoretical, and likely doing regexps on a page rather
than parsing RDF) consumer would not have to know about another
property/class. But arguably CC REL ought have been (or ought be still)
updated such that cc:license is a subproperty of dcterms:rights rather
than dcterms:license and cc:License a subclass of
dcterms:RightsStatement rather than dcterms:LicenseDocument.

Again IIRC dcterms:RightsStatement and LicenseDocument did not exist
until 2008. Had they existed in 2002, I guess the vocabulary CC
introduced (later branded as CC REL) would have used one of them
directly rather than introducing cc:License. Which brings us back to the
answer to your question.

Mike

p.s. I'm using dcterms: for precision and because I note the EDM
document does, though one of my super tiny pet peeves
<http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2014/02/04/one-dc/> concerns never using
DCES 1.1 for anything (all its terms are mirrored in dcterms) and thus
only/always using dc: prefix for http://purl.org/dc/terms/

[Maarten Zeinstra]

Thanks Mike!

So you would actually advise not using the CC:License term in this case?

Also a more general comment towards the CC Global. Do you have any interest in structurally pushing/updating CCrel or is it in your interests to not further that data standard?

Cheers,

Maarten
--

Post by Maarten Zeinstra
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?

dcterms:RightsStatement
IIRC CC stuck with license/License for PDM when that was introduced so
that the (mostly theoretical, and likely doing regexps on a page rather
than parsing RDF) consumer would not have to know about another
property/class. But arguably CC REL ought have been (or ought be still)
updated such that cc:license is a subproperty of dcterms:rights rather
than dcterms:license and cc:License a subclass of
dcterms:RightsStatement rather than dcterms:LicenseDocument.
Again IIRC dcterms:RightsStatement and LicenseDocument did not exist
until 2008. Had they existed in 2002, I guess the vocabulary CC
introduced (later branded as CC REL) would have used one of them
directly rather than introducing cc:License. Which brings us back to the
answer to your question.
Mike
p.s. I'm using dcterms: for precision and because I note the EDM
document does, though one of my super tiny pet peeves
<http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2014/02/04/one-dc/> concerns never using
DCES 1.1 for anything (all its terms are mirrored in dcterms) and thus
only/always using dc: prefix for http://purl.org/dc/terms/
_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel

[Mike Linksvayer]

Post by Maarten Zeinstra
So you would actually advise not using the CC:License term in this case?

Assuming this case is something like deciding the range of edm:rights
then yes I would advise using dcterms:RightsStatement rather than
cc:License. Your schema would be more accurate if less precise. It would
unquestionably allow objects that aren't licenses but instead are public
domain or other copyright status determinations, even objects which
themselves have a license property, much like the ODRS example you
linked to.

Mike

[Maarten Zeinstra]

Thanks Mike,

I see your point, the working group will publish a white paper about the topic within the next following days. I will post a link to it here so you can see what we envision.

Cheers,

Maarten
--

Post by Mike Linksvayer

Post by Maarten Zeinstra
So you would actually advise not using the CC:License term in this case?

Assuming this case is something like deciding the range of edm:rights
then yes I would advise using dcterms:RightsStatement rather than
cc:License. Your schema would be more accurate if less precise. It would
unquestionably allow objects that aren't licenses but instead are public
domain or other copyright status determinations, even objects which
themselves have a license property, much like the ODRS example you
linked to.
Mike