Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use rightsstatements.org for license/rights examples in Image API #1094

Closed
1 of 2 tasks
zimeon opened this issue Mar 8, 2017 · 7 comments
Closed
1 of 2 tasks

Use rightsstatements.org for license/rights examples in Image API #1094

zimeon opened this issue Mar 8, 2017 · 7 comments
Assignees
Labels
editorial Ready-for-Eds Editorial changes ready for Editorial review
Milestone

Comments

@zimeon
Copy link
Member

zimeon commented Mar 8, 2017

Clone of #960 to separate Image API case from Presentation API case. We agreed that we should use examples from rightsstatements.org as these are likely good statements for our community. In Image API 2.1 we have two examples that include license (to be renamed rights in v3 #644):

Tasks:

  • fixed on 2.1.1 branch
  • merged to master
@zimeon
Copy link
Member Author

zimeon commented Mar 8, 2017

I propose that we change the first example to use just http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-EDU/1.0/ , and the second to have http://example.org/rights/license1.html & http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-EDU/1.0/

@azaroth42
Copy link
Member

👍 to proposed solution

@zimeon zimeon self-assigned this Mar 8, 2017
@azaroth42 azaroth42 added Ready-for-Eds Editorial changes ready for Editorial review and removed Ready-for-Eds Editorial changes ready for Editorial review labels Mar 29, 2017
@azaroth42 azaroth42 added the Ready-for-Eds Editorial changes ready for Editorial review label Apr 5, 2017
@aisaac
Copy link
Member

aisaac commented Apr 12, 2017

Hi, it's great what you've done here!
Just wondering: would it help the reader if more context is given, about where such URIs come from? I was thinking of updating the table at the top of 5.4, replacing
"A link to an external resource that describes the license or rights statement under which content obtained from the Image API service may be used."
by
"A link to an external resource that describes the license or rights statement under which content obtained from the Image API service may be used. For example, the standardized licenses and rights statements available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ and http://rightsstatements.org/en/statements/"
@anarchivist do you think it would be appropriate on our side?

@anarchivist
Copy link
Member

As noted on the 12 April 2017 call:

  • I'm -1 on SHOULD for using CC or RS.org statements specifically
  • I'm +1 on SHOULD for recommending that the rights statement identified by URI come from some sort of controlled source of vocabulary

@aisaac
Copy link
Member

aisaac commented Apr 12, 2017

Continuing on noting the discussion on 12 April 2017 call: there is reluctance (especially from @zimeon ) on adding the example in the normative part (table at the top of section 5.4).
I can very much understand this. I suggested an addition to the table as it was the first, natural place that occurred to me. But I will be equally happy if the sentence giving context for the URIs is added in the body of the text between the table and the example.

@aisaac
Copy link
Member

aisaac commented Apr 12, 2017

I also agree with @anarchivist : For 2.1, I am very fine with the current spec draft, which makes only a suggestion about the use of URIs like the ones of CC and RS.org, not a stronger recommendation.

@workergnome
Copy link

👍 for using stating that the URL should be from a machine-readable/dereferencable/from a controlled vocabulary/etc statement.
👎 for explicitly SHOULD to any specific vocabularies.
👍 to adding a description of CC/RS.org in the non-normative section of the text.

@jpstroop jpstroop closed this as completed Jun 9, 2017
@jpstroop jpstroop removed the image label Jun 9, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
editorial Ready-for-Eds Editorial changes ready for Editorial review
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants