VOResource 1.1 rights

Markus Demleitner msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de
Mon Jan 15 14:19:20 CET 2018

Dear Registry community,

Can I bump the topic of rights in VOResource and RegTAP once more?
You may remember the long new-year's mail on that:

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 11:49:08AM +0100, Markus Demleitner wrote:
> Dear Registry Community,
> Excuse me for starting the year with an outsized mail.
> Here's the short version: Even if you don't read all of this post,
> please speak up if you have opinions on how "rights information" --
> which may include licensing information or perhaps requirements on
> citing a specific paper -- should be represented in the VO.

[full version at

Now, *if* we wanted to touch VOResource 1.1 to only allow one rights
element per resource, the time window to do so would be closing fast.
So, if your sympathising with that idea, this is when you should speak

Me, after pondering the matter, I'd be tempted to say "let people
dump multiple rights element into their VOResource elements if they
want, but only put the first into RegTAP and have rights as a normal
column in rr.resource".

This would, of course, lose any additional elements for discovery and
most probably also for display (unless clients really went out to
fetch the full resource record, which I consider unlikely).  Since I
still don't really understand why people would have multiple rights
elements (dual-licensed astro data?), I'm not quite comfortable doing
this, either.  But then that's RegTAP 1.1, so we have a bit more time
to work that out than than if we wanted to do schema-level work.

Again: If you have any opinion, please let us know -- it's not at all
clear what's right here (except that we should have good reasons for
deviating from DataCite), so any thoughts you have about using
rights, licenses and its closer vicinity will be helpful.

        -- Markus

More information about the registry mailing list