Certain European Directives allow Member States (MS) charging administrative fees for public "documents and particulars" (and most of them DO charge fess). This is the case for a large number of Registers. For some interoperability projects being developed by the European Commission this is an important data, and pointing to a a mere license URL is not a solution as harmonising license models amongst the Member States it's not even approached.
Have you been discussing on this issue before?
Component
DocumentationCategory
improvement
Login or
create an account to comment.
Comments
By the way, in case you accept that a datasource can be charged with fees, IMO this fee should be a property of the distribution, as different distributions.
@Enric no objection about the use case, but the problem is DCAT doesn't currently take this into account and thus there is no property we can use there. As this group is not the place to update/modify DCAT it looks like our only options are:
1 - Look for such a property in any other vocabulary. Any suggestion?
2 - Raise the issue up to the W3C DCAT WG
Thank you Carlos,
I'll try to discuss this issue with Phil and Marios next week or so.
Perhaps the Good Relations Ontology can be a useful starting point:
http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/goodrelations/v1.html#UnitPriceSpecification
Or its equivalent on schema.org
http://schema.org/UnitPriceSpecification
My personal opinion is that we should not try to cover this in the Application Profile. If I understand GoodRelations correctly, price is never a direct property of a product or service; it is a property of an offering that links a product to a price under certain conditions. For example, I have seen cases where access to (archival) resources was free for people in a particular country but people from outside had to pay for it. Prices can also change over time, or be different for access and re-use. It's a rather complicated issue. A simple solution may give rise to a lot of problems.
In my mind, the DCAT Application Profile is not intended to support e-commerce systems for datasets. If it was, we would need to import a big part of GoodRelations. Do we really want that?
Makx,
do you think then this subject should be approached by DCAT?
Enric, you are welcome to forward the question to the GLD group and see what their feedback is.
IMO, full support for e-comerce should not be part of DCAT neither the AP. But what could be really useful is a single property that allows to distinguish between those datasets - or maybe better distributions? - that are subject to certain fees and does that are not.
Do we know of a property or controlled vocabulary in RDF that provides gives such a free access/restricted access? And are there any Catalogs that we know of that do need such a property?
Do we know of a property or controlled vocabulary in RDF that provides such a free access/restricted access indication? And are there any Catalogs that we know of that do need such a property?
I wonder whether we may re-use the approach adopted in ADMS.SW for the notion of "licence type". We may update the corresponding "taxonomy" [1] accordingly.
Discussed in call on 8 May 2013. Decision was not to include property.