Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add license restriction to iso19139 #205

Open
frafra opened this issue Dec 27, 2022 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #206
Open

Add license restriction to iso19139 #205

frafra opened this issue Dec 27, 2022 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #206

Comments

@frafra
Copy link

frafra commented Dec 27, 2022

It would be nice to be able to specify the license under gmd:identificationInfo/gmd:MD_DataIdentification/gmd:resourceConstraints/gmd:MD_LegalConstraints/gmd:useLimitation.

<gmd:accessConstraints>
<gmd:MD_RestrictionCode codeList="http://www.isotc211.org/2005/resources/Codelist/gmxCodelists.xml#MD_RestrictionCode" codeSpace="ISOTC211/19115" codeListValue="{{ record['identification']['accessconstraints'] }}">{{ record['identification']['accessconstraints'] }}</gmd:MD_RestrictionCode>
</gmd:accessConstraints>

@frafra frafra linked a pull request Dec 27, 2022 that will close this issue
@tomkralidis
Copy link
Member

I'd lean towards something like (in the MCF) the below proposal:

identification:
    license:
        name: CC-BY-4.0
        url: https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-BY-4.0.html

where the license object must define at least one of name or url. The above can then be applied in a more generic manner to numerous supported metadata formats, including ISO of course.

@frafra thoughts?

@frafra
Copy link
Author

frafra commented Feb 20, 2023

It seems great to me :)

tomkralidis added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2023
tomkralidis added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2023
tomkralidis added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2023
add identification.license to MCF model (#205)
@tomkralidis
Copy link
Member

@frafra: implemented in #212. Can you rebase/update #206 accordingly? Thanks

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants