On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 18:55:35 +0100
Tim Robertson <trobertson@gbif.org> wrote:
Thanks Paul and Tuco for the feedback - useful food for thought and I
note that the DataCite metadata kernel also uses a list for rights,
not a single statement. Allowing a collection of rights might be the
most applicable solution here.

That still leaves uncertainty, does the list CC-BY, CC-BY-NC mean that
the data set in it's entirety is licensed under both CC-BY and
CC-BY-NC, or that there are parts under one license and parts under the
other. At the data set level, collection of rights statements could
easily be interpreted differently than a statement that rights are
stated at the record level.

Agreed. We need to understand how this will relate to DataCite, EML etc and other networks we need to integrate with.

I am not yet sure if DataCite intends to use it to indicate dual licensing (e.g. it can be used in either license) or if it indicates variance.

This needs further investigation and we’ll reply.

A point of clarity though - an image extension allows you to provide
metadata about an image that exists on a URL, but the image itself is
not part of the DwC-A / dataset. One field of the image metadata is
the license applicable for the image but that should not be
transferred to the dataset being put out by the IPT. Or are we not
in agreement on that? E.g. the DwC-A can be available under CC0 but
contain links to online images that could be behind some far more
restrictive license.

This does seem fairly clear in an AudobonCore or other media extension
where metadata about the rights associated with external media objects
are being asserted in the metadata in association with the retrieval
locations of those media objects are being asserted. It seems less
clear if dwc:associatedMedia is present in a flat Occurrence record, is
an assertion about the rights made in the dataset level metadata to be
taken to extend to the digital object at the other end of a link found
in dwc:associatedMedia?

That is one of the common questions - we always advise folk to use a more expressive model (i.e. extensions) where it is necessary to associate titles, rights statements etc.

More tomorrow.

Tim

Thanks,
Tim

On 03 Mar 2015, at 17:13, John Wieczorek <tuco@berkeley.edu> wrote:

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

--
Paul J. Morris
Biodiversity Informatics Manager
Harvard University Herbaria/Museum of Comparative Zoölogy
mole@morris.net AA3SD PGP public key available