W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > February 2018

Re: [AGENDA] W3C Credentials CG Call Tue, February 13, 12 noon ET

From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:27:44 -0800
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <c194ae3c-770b-75a2-9e1c-2f0486795d43@sunshine.net>
On 2018-02-12 9:07 AM, Joe Andrieu wrote:
> *TL;DR: Object Capabilities*
>     *Object Capabilities (33 minutes)*
>      1.
>         _https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rebooting-the-web-of-trust-fall2017/blob/master/final-documents/lds-ocap.pdf_

 From my reading of this, it appears that such capabilities are 
probably covered by what ODRL (Open Digital Rights Language) provides. 
Very recently ODRL 2.2 has finished the W3C process and is about to be 
published as a spec (after 17 years of development):

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/
[2] https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-vocab/
[3] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Main_Page

I found this paper from 2014 in the Journal "Bibliometrics" showing 
that it is appropriate for Linked Data:



Together with the latest efforts in publishing Linked (Open) Data, 
legal issues around publishing and consuming such data are gaining 
increased interest. Particular areas of interest include (i) how to 
define more expressive access policies which go beyond common 
licenses, (ii) how to introduce pricing models for online datasets 
(for non-open data) and (iii) how to realize (i)+(ii) while providing 
descriptions of respective meta data that is both human readable and 
machine processable. In this paper, we show based on different 
examples that the Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) Ontology 2.0 is 
able to address all previous mentioned issues, i.e. is suitable to 
express a large variety of different access policies for Linked Data. 
By defining policies as ODRL in RDF we aim for (i) higher flexibility 
and simplicity in usage, (ii) machine/human readability and (iii) 
fine-grained policy expressions for Linked (Open) Data.

So...perhaps ODRL can be integrated somehow with the DID now?

Received on Monday, 12 February 2018 20:28:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:44 UTC