class Licence Document: complicated way to name a Standard Licence?

[peterlubrich]

Very often, we want to name a Standard Licence for a dataset, e.g. "CC BY-NC".

For this purpose, we use the property licence for class Distribution.

This property is meant to "...refer to the licence under which the Distribution is made available. This SHOULD be a reference to a concrete standard license."

However, we found a very complicated way to name a standard licence under class Licence Document here:

In the definition for class Licence Document, the standard licence is named under a (new) property "standard licence".

However, it would be easier to just name the standard licence as the range of property licence for class Distribution.

Example:

<dcat:distribution>
   <dct:license rdf:resource="http://publications.europa.eu/resource/authority/licence/CC_BY_4_0"/>
<dcat:distribution>

Easy and conforms to DCAT-AP!
So, let's give up the property "standard licence"!

[marioscrock]

I agree with suggesting the usage of this "short" representation for well-known licenses, and we can also recommend the usage of this vocabulary (http://publications.europa.eu/resource/authority/licence) that I think is currently not mentioned in the spec. However, I would keep also the "verbose" possibility not to break backward compatibility. I think it was added to allow the specification of "custom licenses" since we have an optional property of LicenseDocument to add the license text as a string.

[marioscrock]

Related also to #27