2.2 Ontology - List of Issues

[kitchenprinzessin3880]

• An ontology MUST have one and only one rights statement--> if the vocabulary is on public domain, so no copyright is applicable.
• recommend the use of dcterms:source to represent source information through which the class/concept was created.

[dr-shorthair]

If the vocabulary is in the public domain, the rights statement should say that.
If there is no rights statement then it leaves an uncertainty.

Is that what you meant?

[kitchenprinzessin3880]

+1
2.2.8 An ontology MUST have one and only one rights statement that includes copyright information indicated by a dcterms:rights property that links to a string literal value. The string value SHOULD of the form "© AGENCY NAME, YEAR" or "© Australian Government, YEAR".

vocbualry under public domain has no copyright owner, so 'If the vocabulary is in the public domain, the rights statement should say that'...

[dr-shorthair]

I have asked ARDC to add CC0 to their list of standard licenses for RVA, for this reason. If there is no license then that is a signal to steer well clear, in my experience.

[kitchenprinzessin3880]

i have also seen repositories published their datasets with CCO, but require users to attribute the datasets ;)

[dr-shorthair]

Indeed. License and attribution are actually different concerns.
Licensing relates to conditions of use.
Attribution comes under 'moral rights' in many jurisdictions, which can't be signed over to anyone.
(Australia hasn't formally adopted that, however. )

ODRL talks about Permissions, Prohibitions and Obligations, along with Constraints.

Renato Iannella was largely responsible for ODRL. He is in Brisbane.