Define a new rights statement using @context

[glenrobson]

Recipe Name

The presentation API requires rights statements "drawn from the set of Creative Commons license URIs, the RightsStatements.org rights statement URIs, or those added via the extension mechanism."

https://iiif.io/api/presentation/3.0/#rights

It would be useful to have a recipe to explain the extension mechanism for rights statements that fall out of this list of URIs.

Use case

I want to provide a rights URI that isn't in the allowed list.

[leanderseige]

An example: The German public Open Data portal https://www.govdata.de/ has unfortunately developed its own license (https://www.govdata.de/dl-de/by-2-0), which is used by the majority of datasets (about 60k out of 80k datasets). To me it is unclear whether the URI of the license (https://www.govdata.de/dl-de/by-2-0) can be used in the rights property (by extending the @context of the entire document).

@regisrob has pointed out a list of interesting licenses that could be considered: https://spdx.org/licenses/

[leanderseige]

I tried several methods to change the @context in order to overwrite the definition of the rights property and allow an additional (or arbitrary) value. I can't reproduce each and every single experiment, but here is the latest one:

https://gist.githubusercontent.com/leanderseige/09eb2afa1728295ce5caaf89aa24db04/raw/575eeb3f1dc31ae70853ca08d7b7a9e0b5ef69eb/context-test

produces the following errors:

However, I ask myself whether this approach is not valid regarding the principles of JSON-LD, JSON Schema et al or if the validator actually takes the modified @context into account.

All in all, I think it would be worth thinking about relaxing the restrictions on the rights property in one way or another in a future version of the IIIF Presentation API.

[kirschbombe]

Hi, @glenrobson and @leanderseige. We discussed in the editors meeting this morning and we suggest creating a new registry for licenses/rights and adding new statements to the rights context through TRC. I can create a branch in the api repo with the new registry page where the two of you can add the new context to share with TRC for review/approval. This should maybe be an issue in the api repo?

@mikeapp or @tomcrane might want to weigh in to make sure I didn't miss anything.

[leanderseige]

Hi @kirschbombe that sounds great! I don't know exactly what I'll have to do then, but I'm really looking forward to it.

[azaroth42]

This is an API issue, not a cookbook issue.

[leanderseige]

@azaroth42 can this issue be addressed in any other way? What can we do?