[odc-discuss] ODbL statement in Linked Data?

Rufus Pollock rufus.pollock at okfn.org
Wed Jun 22 16:48:05 UTC 2011

On 22 June 2011 17:36, Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
>> On 22 June 2011 11:37, Jo Walsh <jo.walsh at ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> We have agreement to license a set of historic place-name and location data
>>> under ODbL - it is published as "linked data" e.g. RDF - are there
>>> recommendations for how to state licensing for the contents of a URI in RDF?
>> Mike's advice is really good. You could also use dc:rights here i.e.
>> <subject> http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/rights <license-uri>
> Please don't! Use http://purl.org/dc/terms/license
> (DC Elements superseded by DC Terms, license appropriate refinement of rights)

Of course and apologies -- the problem of writing too quickly! Thanks
for catching this Mike.

> I didn't want to go into details, but depending on context you might
> want to use bare "license" (in [x]html ns if you're doing RDFa, also
> works as microformat simultaneously) or dc:license or cc:license, all
> equivalent, just use whatever convenient.

More good points!


>> As a license uri use:
>> <http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0>
> I'd be nice if that didn't redirect to
> http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ if it is the
> intended canonical URI for the license. Not necessary, just a nit.

Right again, should be:


Making me wonder if we should use for canonical url:



More information about the odc-discuss mailing list