[IPT] IPT v2.2 - release candidate

[John Wieczorek]

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 at morris.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 13:18:35 +0100
> Kyle Braak <kbraak at 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 at morris.net  AA3SD  PGP public key available
> _______________________________________________
> IPT mailing list
> IPT at lists.gbif.org
> http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gbif.org/pipermail/ipt/attachments/20150303/e66e9040/attachment.html>