<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
Dear Registry members,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Below, an excerpt of our private discussion between Markus and
myself concerning Aladin usage of registry rights.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Pierre<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 08/01/2018 à 14:35, Pierre
Fernique a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:10f3792b-5ddf-40a1-3076-3b64aed5ebeb@astro.unistra.fr">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 03/01/2018 à 11:56, Markus
Demleitner a écrit :<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
(...)<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:10f3792b-5ddf-40a1-3076-3b64aed5ebeb@astro.unistra.fr">More
importantly, I'd be curious to learn your opinions on the
<blockquote cite="mid:20180103105604.zr4ryjez2r2ibfxd@victor"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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?</pre>
</blockquote>
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).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
(...)<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:10f3792b-5ddf-40a1-3076-3b64aed5ebeb@astro.unistra.fr">
<img src="cid:part1.E0AF3D58.CE7A18C8@astro.unistra.fr" alt=""
class=""><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20180103105604.zr4ryjez2r2ibfxd@victor"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Thanks,
Markus
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
Le 15/01/2018 à 14:19, Markus Demleitner a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20180115131920.2iyvoknsg5lao3ry@victor">
<pre wrap="">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:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
[full version at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/registry/2018-January/005221.html">http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/registry/2018-January/005221.html</a>]
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
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>