Future usage of property "conditions for access and usage"

[peterlubrich]

For Distributions, we have the mandatory property "dct:rights" with cardinality 1..1.
This leads to class "Rights Statement", which has a mandatory property "conditions for access and usage".
For this property, we are using the following Controlled Vocabulary:
https://mobilitydcat-ap.github.io/controlled-vocabularies/conditions-for-access-and-usage/latest/index.html#/

This Vocabulary is denoting pre-defined categories of "conditions for access and usage". The origin of this property and its Vocabulary is the Coordinated Metadata Catalogue. We took this over via the Conceptual Model, but made the value list a little more generic.

Old value list (CMC):

• No licence – No contract
• Licence and Free of charge
• Licence and Fee
• Contract and Free of charge
• Contract and Fee
• Not relevant

Current value list (our Controlled Vocabulary):

• Licence provided
• Contractual arrangement
• Free of charge
• Fee required
• Royalty-free
• Other

However, there are some observations:

• The above value list is rarely used as metadata fields in existing NAPs.
• For new NAPs (e.g., in DK), it seems that concrete licenses are preferred (via another property "dct:license").
• Our value list seems a little naive (it has never been discussed with license experts). For example, there might be a combination of the values "Licence provided" and "Free of charge", which is not allowed with cardinality 1..1.

Options:

• Check and verify the current value list
• Change cardinality to 1..n.
• Make property recommended (instead mandatory) with cardinality 0..n.

[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.