VOResource 1.1 rights

Pierre Fernique Pierre.Fernique at astro.unistra.fr
Tue Jan 16 14:55:35 CET 2018

Dear Registry members,

Concerning "rights" mention I would say that the best method is the 
method which is really used. Potential multiple rights mentions is 
probably not a good point for this rule. A free text field is 
definitively more flexible that the current VOResource 1.0 solution, and 
can tackle all potential various rights situation.

Below, an excerpt of our private discussion between Markus and myself 
concerning Aladin usage of registry rights.


Le 08/01/2018 à 14:35, Pierre Fernique a écrit :
> Le 03/01/2018 à 11:56, Markus Demleitner a écrit :
> More importantly, I'd be curious to learn your opinions on the
>> questions raised and what your use cases are.  In particular, where
>> do the strings ("Contact rights holder...") above come from?  Where
>> do you display them?  Whereever they come from: are they queriable
>> there?  Have there ever been requests from anyone to make them
>> queriable?
> We have some collections, notably Mellinger HiPS, for which the author 
> explicitly asked us to provide this kind of mention. More common, most 
> of collections are not really "public". The access is free but the 
> copy for a redistribution may be not allowed by the rights holders. 
> The best example is the DSS, and all derived digitized survey from 
> Schmidt plates surveys. For catalogs and tables the rights are 
> probably more complex notably for the big part of literature tables. 
> I'm not an expert on this point but as these tables are published by 
> editors, the original author has signed a paper to partially abandon 
> his rights to the editor, I suppose that the associated tables follow 
> the same rule. CDS has several formal agreements with editors to 
> publish these tables but that do not remove the editor rights. For 
> paper funding by French government, the editor will automatically lost 
> the right hold after one year (it is new after a big debate). So after 
> this period, the rights holder becomes again the original author. 
> Depending of its status (public funding or not) this table may or may 
> not be really "public". In Aladin Desktop we display this rights 
> mention at various places (see below).
> In practice we use 4 notions linked together: 1) the copyrigth 
> mention, 2) the acknowledgement mention, 3) the provenance (or 
> hierarchy of provenance), 4) the reference bibliographic code. These 
> information are decoupled to the possible authorization technical 
> parameters.

>> Thanks,
>>          Markus

Le 15/01/2018 à 14:19, Markus Demleitner a écrit :
> 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
> http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/registry/2018-January/005221.html]
> 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
> up.
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/registry/attachments/20180116/ee4c8b60/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: fjbbggihpbjkbmnb.png
Type: image/png
Size: 21247 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/registry/attachments/20180116/ee4c8b60/attachment-0001.png>

More information about the registry mailing list