wrong example for rightsURI in DataCite Metadata Schema 4.3 Documentation PDF

David Fichtmueller

unread,

May 14, 2020, 9:21:14 AM5/14/20

to DataCite Metadata

In the pdf file for the DataCite Metadata Schema 4.3 Documentation [1], for element 16.a "rightsURI" (on page 26), the example is given as "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/de/deed.en", however correct License URI for this license is "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/de/" (the language in which the page is viewed ("deed.en") not part of license, also Creative Commons now encourages https links to the license URIs).

I just wanted to point this out, so this issue can be fixed in the next version and not lead people into using the wrong kind of License URIs.

Thanks

David

[1] https://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-4.3/doc/DataCite-MetadataKernel_v4.3.pdf

A C z

unread,

Jun 2, 2020, 4:31:30 PM6/2/20

to DataCite Metadata

Dear David,

good question, which of a rightsURI is the correct one.

If could be the short - summary - one

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/de/

in german or the long version (legalcode), like the license statement from sourcecodes (example kernel.org - https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0?h=v5.7 ) :

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/de/legalcode

in german or

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode

in english.

The full-example of DataCite schema v4.3 ( https://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-4.3/example/datacite-example-full-v4.xml ) has:

    <rightsList>
        <rights xml:lang="en-US" schemeURI="https://spdx.org/licenses/" rightsIdentifierScheme="SPDX" rightsIdentifier="CC0 1.0" rightsURI="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/"/>  </rightsList>

Or should it https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.html because the rightsIdentifierScheme is SPDX in the example above?

Best regards, Andreas

Angelika Heil

unread,

Mar 30, 2022, 3:21:30 AM3/30/22

to DataCite Metadata

Dear David, dear all,

I also see some problems with how the example for the license is given (https://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-4.4/example/datacite-example-full-v4.xml (same license example as in v4.3)):

Firstly,

the identifier specified in https://spdx.org/licenses/ is "CC0-1.0" and not "CC0 1.0" (see also https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.html). And since the scheme is specified as schemeURI="https://spdx.org/licenses/" rightsIdentifierScheme="SPDX", I would expect that the rightsIdentifier refers to the SPDX short identifier which is "CC0-1.0".

Please also have a look at https://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-4.4/doc/DataCite-MetadataKernel_v4.4.pdf (Table 4):

16.b rightsIdentifier definition: A short, standardized version of the license name Example: CC-BY-3.0

Here, CC-BY-3.0 is given as example which corresponds to the SPDX short identifier (https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-BY-3.0.html).

When you look at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/, Creative Commons uses the abbreviation CC BY 3.0.

The same is true for other CC licenses. Licenses other than CC typically do not use blanks in their license abbreviation.

The SPDX short identifier always spells the licenses without blanks and, in cases where the license abbreviation contains blanks, it uses - signs instead.

Examples:

Original abbreviation SPDX

CC BY 2.0 CC-BY-2.0 #-- The CC Best practices for attribution guide uses CC BY 2.0 (see Example This is an ideal attribution)

CC BY 3.0 CC-BY-3.0

CC BY 4.0 CC-BY-4.0

CC0 1.0 CC0-1.0 #--- Original site not explicitly state abbreviation, but abbreviation is used in a blog written by CC's General Councils

Artistic-1.0 Artistic-1.0

BSD-2-Clause BSD-2-Clause #-- Original site explicitly state that they refer to SPDX abbreviation

AFL-3.0 AFL-3.0 #-- Original site explicitly state that they refer to SPDX abbreviation

I noted that in the different examples provided at https://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-4.4/, the rightsIdentifier is not spelled out in a consistent manner:

with space

rightsIdentifier="CC0 1.0" ---> datacite-example-workflow-v4.xml & datacite-example-full-v4.xml & datacite-example-affiliation-v4.xml

without space

rightsIdentifier="CC-BY-3.0" ---> datacite-example-GeoLocation-v4.xml

rightsIdentifier="CC-BY-NC-ND-3.0" ---> datacite-example-relationTypeIsIdenticalTo-v4.xml & datacite-example-HasMetadata-v4.xml

rightsIdentifier="CC-BY-ND-2.0" ---> datacite-example-complicated-v4.xml

rightsIdentifier="GPL-3.0-only" ---> datacite-example-software-v4.xml

We, as a data repository, are a concerned about the possible legal implications if we use the license abbreviation incorrectly. So, we would very much appreciate if we could get some clear guidance.

Secondly,

I wonder why schemeURI and rightsIdentifierScheme refers to SPDX, but the rightsURI does not use a SPDX URL (https://spdx.org/licenses/${SPDX abbreviation}.html).

For each license, SPDX has established a canonical permanent URL that gives access to the entire license text.

Wouldn't it be more consistent to use rightsURI="https://spdx.org/licenses/${SPDX abbreviation}.html"?

Thirdly,

I wonder why the full name of the licenses is not mentioned in the DataCite xml examples. The CC Best practices for attribution guide recommends that the licenses are spelled out.

In summary, I would expect

<rights schemeURI="https://spdx.org/licenses/" rightsIdentifierScheme="SPDX" rightsIdentifier="CC0-1.0" rightsURI="https://spdx.org/licenses/CC0-1.0.html">Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal</rights>

</rightsList>

instead of

in https://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-4.4/example/datacite-example-full-v4.xml (and correspondingly in the other examples).

I would appreciate if you could put up this proposal for discussion.

Thanks a lot and best regards

Angelika

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward