Re: Reaction and questions to new docs

Hi Renato, Stuart,

Thanks a lot for the answers!

Indeed the idea of "usage guidelines" would help a lot. The IPTC pages and examples may not have the "pure RDF" syntax I was looking for. I would have to work and turn the XML element

       <o:constraint name="http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/purpose"
        operator="http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/eq"
        rightOperand="http://example.com/cv/audMedia/MOBILE"/>

into RDF statements.
But these IPTC pages and examples are a great thing. I believe I can work based on Stuart's example.
Probably my RDF statements could be like

      aPermission odrl:constraint [
       odrl:operator odrl:eq ;
       odrl:purpose ex:education
      ]

I guess ODRL might need some additional space for non-IPTC examples, such as the wiki as Renato suggested.
I wish I could help, but I'm afraid the only thing I can offer is the sort of discussion we're having now, and share our example data, when we end up using ODRL. For the moment we're focusing on simple things...

As a matter of fact, my question on labels and documentations was maybe about even more informal types of text than NewsML-G2's "usage terms". Just a simple name for a rights statement (as the title at [1]), and a brief definition or scope note!
We're actually considering skos:definition and skos:scopeNote from the SKOS ontology for the notes about the rights statement, and skos:prefLabel or dc:title for their label.

Cheers,

Antoine

[1] https://github.com/creativecommons/license.rdf/blob/master/cc/licenserdf/licenses/creativecommons.org_publicdomain_mark_1.0_.rdf

On 3/11/15 1:29 PM, Renato Iannella wrote:
>
>> But it is really not easy for us understand how to use ODRL, even with the enhanced documentation.
>
> Hi Antoine - The current ODRL specifications are written primarily as normative documents - and it would be good to have a set of companion "usage guidelines" that explored a number of implementation scenarios.
> (we even have an Issue [1] raised for this, but looking for volunteers)
>
>> This is difficult to assess as it's unclear where profiles are documented. The Common vocabulary https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/vocab/2.1/ says "see also Section 3 Profiles" but there's no such section anywhere. Which is rather surprising to find *after* the closing of a call for comments by the way.
>
> That was an editorial error, as we moved all the Profile information from the Vocab spec into the Model spec.
> (Now fixed)
>
>> If it is too late for you to answer such things now that you've closed the call for comments, we'd understand of course.
>> If you're happy with happy with this kind of conversation, we will probably come with more questions in the very near future.
>
> We can always develop additional specifications/reports to help implementors.
> Or even use our wiki to capture "how to" examples.
>
>
> Cheers...
> Renato Iannella
> Semantic Identity  http://semanticidentity.com  +61 4 1313 2206
> Chair, W3C ODRL Community Group http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/track/issues/3
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2015 20:53:31 UTC