Future usage of property "conditions for access and usage"

[mobilitydcat-ap]

Future usage of property "conditions for access and usage"

[EdNDW]

Another option is to combine several possible options in the same way was done in the CMC. For example:

• Licence provided and Free of charge
• Licence provided and Fee required
• Etc.

[burespe1]

We shall reuse as much as DCAT concepts as possible.

Therefore I suggest we follow the reuse rule (pointed out above by @peterlubrich) and use property "dct:license" for informing about concrete licenses and keeping the original "conditions for access and usage" property for informing mainly about the paid or not payed (free of charge). later on we could remove the "conditions for access and usage" prooetry

This could be done by wiki page and published guideline there.

[CRVH]

Suggestion to split the question/property in two:

1. Recommend to have one field to ask: Is data for free or not?
2. Ask the question (regardless the answer to the first) : "Is data shared under a licence? Either yes, no, or choose from a list of CC BY licence.
   I hope my suggestion is understandable.

[peterlubrich]

Meeting 24.06.24: complex story: licenses vs. access conditions - discuss again for major revision

[peterlubrich]

There seem to be an need to improve the license information, at least here for the NAP in Germany.
Comment from NAP operator:

The field “Conditions for access and usage” (with the generic categories “Licence provided” etc.) is a relic from the old NAP days. The field “standard license”, on the other hand, comes from the open data scene and has also found its way into the NAP cosmos. Some prominent users of our NAP (e.g., Google Maps) are much more interested in the field “standard license”. We propose to make the field “Conditions for access and usage” optional and make the field “standard license” mandatory instead.

Proposal:
Take on as discussion item for future release of mobilityDCAT-AP
To be handled by new working group, see issue 18