How to match license when uploading EML?

[peterdesmet]

The dataset license is exported in the EML as:

<intellectualRights>
    <para>To the extent possible under law, the publisher has waived all rights to these data and has dedicated them to the <ulink url="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode"><citetitle>Public Domain (CC0 1.0)</citetitle></ulink>. Users may copy, modify, distribute and use the work, including for commercial purposes, without restriction.</para>
</intellectualRights>

I'm generating an EML file, that I then upload to the IPT. Should I match the above verbatim if I want the IPT to recognize the license I'm providing? Or is it possible to provide something shorter that the IPT will still recognize as that license? E.g. the license name:

ipt/src/main/resources/org/gbif/metadata/eml/licenses.properties

Line 8 in 55eced1

license.name.cczero=Public Domain (CC0 1.0)

[mike-podolskiy90]

Thanks @peterdesmet for your question
Yes, you can provide the license name, IPT should recognize that.

[mike-podolskiy90]

But there will be an issue with GBIF infrastracture. Other systems (namely registry) will fail to digest it:

No machine readable license was detected

So to be processed they have to contain this part:

<ulink url="..."><citetitle>...</citetitle></ulink>

[peterdesmet]

Aha, thanks! I notice the name needs to be wrapped in <para> for the IPT to recognize it:

<intellectualRights><para>Public Domain (CC0 1.0)</para></intellectualRights>

Maybe it would be worth using license identifiers provided by https://opendefinition.org/licenses/api/ to make the match. Those identifiers are typically returned by APIs, such as Zenodo. The identifiers would be:

CC0-1.0
CC-BY-4.0
CC-BY-NC-4.0

[mike-podolskiy90]

Sounds reasonable to me, but unfortunately there is nothing we can do in the IPT with this

[peterdesmet]

So I should try to match the (long) values verbatim?

[mike-podolskiy90]

@peterdesmet Yes

[timrobertson100]

Sounds reasonable to me, but unfortunately there is nothing we can do in the IPT with this

It does seem like a reasonable thing for the EML parser to support and that a user can set a license in an EML file that the IPT detects. Could we just handle this somewhere around here perhaps?

[mike-podolskiy90]

Thanks Tim, I'll try to test that in the gbif-metadata-profile project

[peterdesmet]

Thanks for implementing, where can I test this? https://ipt.gbif.org?

[mike-podolskiy90]

https://ipt.gbif-uat.org/
Do you have an account there?

[peterdesmet]

No, but I do have one at https://ipt.gbif.org. Testing is not urgent for me.

[mike-podolskiy90]

It's a snapshot version, and we usually don't deploy snapshots to ipt.gbif.org. But I can create an account on UAT for you

[peterdesmet]

Tested: works well, but would it be possible to make matching case insensitive? I noticed that the official key CC0-1.0 is expressed as cc0-1.0 by e.g. DataCite.

[mike-podolskiy90]

Thank you, good point. I'll make it case insensitive