I agree. This is particularly problematic in a resource that includes a media extension, where the rights of the core records may well differ from that of the media, and where the rights on individual media vary within the extension. I think creates an unacceptable barrier. Instead, could the IPT allow a set of rights at the dataset level or validate for rights at the record level?_______________________________________________On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Paul J. Morris <mole@morris.net> wrote:On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 13:18:35 +0100
Kyle Braak <kbraak@gbif.org> wrote:
> Best practice is that the license applied to the dataset should not
> contradict the license(s) applied at the record level.
I think this imposes a requirement that the dataset level metadata can have a value which indicates that rights are described at the record level rather than at the dataset level. Otherwise, it imposes a requirement on data providers that they create a unique resource for each separate rights statement, this will be a problem for any provider who has more than one rights assertion in their data, and for intermediate aggregators who are combining data sets from downstream profiders and passing them on to other aggregators upstream.
-Paul
--
Paul J. Morris
Biodiversity Informatics Manager
Harvard University Herbaria/Museum of Comparative Zoölogy
mole@morris.net AA3SD PGP public key available
_______________________________________________
IPT mailing list
IPT@lists.gbif.org
http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
IPT mailing list
IPT@lists.gbif.org
http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt