Re: ODRL target/Dublin Core license/rights

Hi Cindy,

On 28 Jul 2013, at 16:47, Cindy Lewis <cindy.lewis@me.com> wrote:

> Thanks, M., for the early Sunday morning mental exercise.
> 
> 1. May I suggest calling it " Restriction" rather than "Inverse"? If I follow your argument, we are discussing a form of Prohibition, right? 

The use of 'restriction' is a specific OWL construct, rather than something of my own invention ? it's defining the relationship between the ODRL terminology and that used elsewhere.

> 2. After reading your post, I feel dcterms:license is the best choice.
> 
> When I was writing the Wikipedia entry, I kept circling back to the central premise that the ODRL language was either expressing a Permission or a Prohibition. Thus, the descriptors License (a form of permission), and Restriction (a form of prohibiton) seem to similarly align.

That was my initial thinking, and that of others too in other contexts, but ODRL allows the expression of more than that ? it's a full-bodied REL, and so allows description of things broader than licensing terms -- i.e., rights documents in general? but that's my personal view.

(It may be that 'both, depending upon context' is the right approach here, though it would need some evaluation rules defining)

Let's see what others think!

M.

-- 
Mo McRoberts - Analyst - BBC Archive Development,
Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA,
MC3 D6, Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TQ,
0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E



-----------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and 
may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in 
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the 
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender 
immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails 
sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to 
this.
-----------------------------

Forwarded message 1

  • From: Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk>
  • Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 17:05:33 +0000
  • Subject: Re: ODRL target/Dublin Core license/rights
  • To: Cindy Lewis <cindy.lewis@me.com>
  • CC: "<public-odrl@w3.org> Group" <public-odrl@w3.org>
  • Message-ID: <2C7ED558-5717-49C5-A729-79412C749DBF@bbc.co.uk>
Hi Cindy,

On 28 Jul 2013, at 16:47, Cindy Lewis <cindy.lewis@me.com> wrote:

> Thanks, M., for the early Sunday morning mental exercise.
> 
> 1. May I suggest calling it " Restriction" rather than "Inverse"? If I follow your argument, we are discussing a form of Prohibition, right? 

The use of 'restriction' is a specific OWL construct, rather than something of my own invention — it's defining the relationship between the ODRL terminology and that used elsewhere.

> 2. After reading your post, I feel dcterms:license is the best choice.
> 
> When I was writing the Wikipedia entry, I kept circling back to the central premise that the ODRL language was either expressing a Permission or a Prohibition. Thus, the descriptors License (a form of permission), and Restriction (a form of prohibiton) seem to similarly align.

That was my initial thinking, and that of others too in other contexts, but ODRL allows the expression of more than that — it's a full-bodied REL, and so allows description of things broader than licensing terms -- i.e., rights documents in general… but that's my personal view.

(It may be that 'both, depending upon context' is the right approach here, though it would need some evaluation rules defining)

Let's see what others think!

M.

-- 
Mo McRoberts - Analyst - BBC Archive Development,
Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA,
MC3 D6, Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TQ,
0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E

Received on Sunday, 28 July 2013 17:06:26 UTC