On 22 June 2011 17:36, Mike Linksvayer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Rufus Pollock <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 22 June 2011 11:37, Jo Walsh <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> We have agreement to license a set of historic place-name and location data >>> under ODbL - it is published as "linked data" e.g. RDF - are there >>> recommendations for how to state licensing for the contents of a URI in RDF? >> >> Mike's advice is really good. You could also use dc:rights here i.e. >> >> <subject> http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/rights <license-uri> > > Please don't! Use http://purl.org/dc/terms/license > > (DC Elements superseded by DC Terms, license appropriate refinement of rights)
Of course and apologies -- the problem of writing too quickly! Thanks for catching this Mike. > I didn't want to go into details, but depending on context you might > want to use bare "license" (in [x]html ns if you're doing RDFa, also > works as microformat simultaneously) or dc:license or cc:license, all > equivalent, just use whatever convenient. More good points! Rufus >> As a license uri use: >> >> <http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0> > > I'd be nice if that didn't redirect to > http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ if it is the > intended canonical URI for the license. Not necessary, just a nit. Right again, should be: <http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/> Making me wonder if we should use for canonical url: <http://opendatacommons.org/id/licenses/odbl/1.0> Rufus _______________________________________________ odc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss
