dcterms:license instead of gist:license

[marksem]

I noticed we created a gist:license annotation property to point at a license URL.

Why not use existing term dcterms:license?

Refs:
[1] https://www.dublincore.org/resources/userguide/publishing_metadata/#dcterms:license

[rjyounes]

@marksem These three labels are meant to be mutually exclusive reasons for closing the issue. Which is it? And why NOT use dcterms:license? I would prefer it.

[marksem]

haha, those labels were NOT what I picked. :O Some weird UI error, perhaps? I fixed them (should be small, minor, patch). My intent was to suggeste that we SHOULD use dcterms:license.

[rjyounes]

Sorry to persist, but minor and patch are also mutually exclusive. Did you mean to assign a priority instead?

I think it's a patch, doesn't affect semantics.

[uscholdm]

One reason to not use dcterms:license is to keep Rebecca happy by giving protégé no ideas about creating extra junk. Kidding aside, I'm good with this. Maybe a solution to the proptégé problem is to have a single ontology called say gistExternallyImported which has all the stuff that we use from outside ontologies. This would be handy for all of us, a place to look for what external stuff is being used.

[rjyounes]

That doesn't solve the Protégé problem. Let's say you use dcterms:license in an owl file, even though you are not defining it. Protégé adds the following:

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="&dcterms;license"/>

Caveat: dcterms is an rdf property, not an owl property, and I don't actually know how Protégé will dump this out (and won't take 5 minutes to test ;) ). So the problem is in the files that reference the property.

But @uscholdm I appreciate the thought.

For the purpose of helping to keep track, I've done something a bit different, which is to create a directory called sources and add fragments of external ontologies (whether imported or not), one per file. Makes things a little clearer.

[DanCarey404]

I think we need a discussion about whether or not gist is to be self-contained. And if not, to what extent are we willing to rely on external ontologies. I definitely think Dave needs to weigh in on that question.