{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/stuartasutton/LRMI-Terms/issues/5","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/stuartasutton/LRMI-Terms/issues/5/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/stuartasutton/LRMI-Terms/issues/5/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/stuartasutton/LRMI-Terms/issues/5/events","html_url":"https://github.com/stuartasutton/LRMI-Terms/issues/5","id":58357670,"number":5,"title":"Disposition of useRightsUrl","user":{"login":"stuartasutton","id":2939046,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2939046?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/stuartasutton","html_url":"https://github.com/stuartasutton","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/stuartasutton/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/stuartasutton/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/stuartasutton/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/stuartasutton/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/stuartasutton/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/stuartasutton/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/stuartasutton/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/stuartasutton/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/stuartasutton/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/stuartasutton/LRMI-Terms/labels/question","name":"question","color":"cc317c"}],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":19,"created_at":"2015-02-20T14:11:19Z","updated_at":"2015-05-15T03:27:25Z","closed_at":null,"body":"The useRightsUrl property was brought over to DCMI in the transition as part of the LRMI-approved version 1.1. [1]  As we know, the useRightsUrl was not adopted by schema.org given the schema.org/license property (https://schema.org/license). As part of the RDF encoding of 1.1, the  useRightsUrl property was included [2] and declared as a subproperty of the schema.org/license property. \r\n\r\nAt the time of adoption by schema.org/license property, there was an ongoing conversation on the LRMI GG of refining the lrmi:useRightsUrl with subproperties that would better meet the needs of certain use cases (get GG message permalinks). I know that Steve and Brandt were keen on refinement. That refinement conversation stalled in light of the schema.org/license adoption **and** the shift of LRMI focus to the transition of the specification's stewardship. \r\n\r\nSo, the question: Where do we stand on the lrmi:useRightsUrl status and refinements discussion?   \r\n\r\n[1] http://dublincore.org/dcx/lrmi-terms/1.1/\r\n[2] http://dublincore.org/dcx/lrmi-terms/#useRightsUrl"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/stuartasutton/LRMI-Terms/issues/comments/102242999","html_url":"https://github.com/stuartasutton/LRMI-Terms/issues/5#issuecomment-102242999","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/stuartasutton/LRMI-Terms/issues/5","id":102242999,"user":{"login":"science","id":67948,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/67948?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/science","html_url":"https://github.com/science","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/science/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/science/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/science/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/science/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/science/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/science/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/science/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/science/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/science/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-05-15T03:27:25Z","updated_at":"2015-05-15T03:27:25Z","body":"Concept/Proposal:\r\n\r\nA) If the resource is tagged with license or collection metadata, assume the resource is closed, unless you recognize the license as being open. This sets the incentive on the community to tag things as open or they won't show up, which seems right. It also makes the resources more usable since the user shouldn't see closed resources that they don't have access to.\r\n\r\nB) I would also propose that if there is *no* metadata at all about license or collection, then the resource should be assumed to be \"open.\" This seems like a good way to \"split the baby.\" The web is open by default and poorly marked up, so if you see metadata that doesn't have license data assume it is web accessible (aka minimally open). \r\n\r\n"}}