Nevalicori added a comment. Thanks for clarifying the priority issue.
While it might be repetitious, it's not unusual to license different serialisations differently (WIkidata doesn't, but other sites do: the HTML representation may well be under a more restrictive license than the RDF, for example). From a processor's point of view (at least, one that actually cares about licensing and isn't a human being), it needs to be able to understand that "this resource that I retrieved is under X licence" (which is really the point of licensing predicates). As the resource URI really is `/wiki/Special:EntityData/Q1.ttl`, that's the resource which needs to have licensing data expressed about it. You //could// say “all serialisations of this document are licensed under these terms”, but you'd have to relate each serialisation to the abstract document URI //and// be fairly confident that consumers would adopt it as a practice. We could update our processor to follow a `<concrete-uri> dct:isVersionOf <abstract-uri>` to look for licensing data, although I don't know if anybody else would go to the trouble (it's hard enough to get licensing data included in the first place!) An alternative approach would be to send it as a `Link` header (with `rel=license`) (which is what some others do), at which point the RDF itself becomes slightly moot. TASK DETAIL https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T73991 REPLY HANDLER ACTIONS Reply to comment or attach files, or !close, !claim, !unsubscribe or !assign <username>. EMAIL PREFERENCES https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ To: Nevalicori Cc: Smalyshev, Nevalicori, Wikidata-bugs, Lydia_Pintscher, daniel, aude _______________________________________________ Wikidata-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs
