Issue on page /content/recipes/reusability/expressing-data-use.html

[iemam]

• The first three recipes(FCB032, FCB033, FCB034) should not be referred to as a recipe, since they do not prescribe any outcome and are only there for background info. I suggest recipes that are like this should either be introductory sections in an output-producing recipe, or introduce a new type of sections in the cookbook and call it reference information or something like that, where recipes can then reference the relevant sections.

• FCB035 (Declaring data’s permitted uses) needs splitting into two recipes

  • 4.5.1 is a recipe that explains how a hosting resource (in this case SRA & EGA) have implemented data access right policy.
  • 4.5.2 is the actual recipe here and it's about ODRL and how to implement it in data catalogues. That's a very clear and specific objective of a recipe.
  • 4.6 and 4.7 should go into one section “Implementing ODRL”
    • Implementation in EGA
    • Implementation in Data Catalogues
  • whys is 4.6.1 is under 4.6? shouldn’t it be under 4.5?

[proccaserra]

@iemam some of your points relate to the following 2 issues: #442 #428

most authors prefer to be given a guprid for the content they have produce so we should: -[ ] mint those identifiers -[ ] clarify the type of content (e.g. background, hands-on and so. -[ ] provide definitions + tooltips for those terms.

So I would keep things as they are now.

Regarding extracting 4.5.1. into a specific recipe has merits to show interplay between SRA and DUO.

ODRL is a W3C specification and it has an RDF vocabulary so not clear about what you mean by 'ODRL' in EGA.

Regarding your last point, 4.6.1 is where it is because DCAT documentation clearly recommends using ODRL vocabulary to express permitted use, I will leave it there unless I completely miss your point.