Re: A clarification on odrl:duty

Dear all,

On 2/19/16 1:54 PM, Renato Iannella wrote:>
> The duty property is defined correctly (Domain=Permission, Range=Action/Duty)\
>

Thanks for the quick clarification, this is helpful!
However I'm now having doubts that this property is useful for the example that lead Nandana to ask the question...

I'm going to try and recap. Sorry for the long mail...

What we want to represent is that a provider (serviceProvider) grants the permission to access a dataset and commits to serve the data 99% availability of a SPARQL endpoint associated with the dataset.

Nandana suggested to express it in ODRL as a duty on the service provider. The current representation is this:

_:ex1 a odrl:Offer
    odrl:permission [
      a odrl:Permission
      odrl:target _:myDatasetDistribution ;
      odrl:action odrl:access;
      odrl:assigner _:serviceProvider;
      odrl:duty [
        a odrl:Duty
        odrl:assignee _:serviceProvider;
        odrl:action xxx:serve;
        odrl:constraint [
            xxx:dqvMetric _:sparqlEndpointUptime;
            xxx:dqvMeasureValue 99:
            odrl:operator odrl:gteq;
        ]
     ]
   ]
  
The example refers to not-yet-formalized elements from the Data Quality Vocabulary that our W3C WG is working on. I hope this will be self-explanatory enough. Anyway the core question is really about how the Duty should be linked to the Offer!

ODRL defines "A Duty indicates requirements which must be fulfilled in order to receive the permission." But I 'm not sure this fits our example: the uptime is not a duty that's essentially linked to the Permission given to the data re-users. ODRL words seem to say that the duty is a counterpart for getting a permission to do something. Here our uptime is not a counterpart of the permission to access.

Do you also feel there's some discrepancy between ODRL's definition of Duty and how our example uses it?

In fact I'd rather see the Duty as first-order item in the Offer, as in the representation below:

_:ex1 a odrl:Offer
    odrl:permission [
      odrl:target _:myDatasetDistribution ;
      odrl:action odrl:access;
      odrl:assigner _:serviceProvider;
    ]
    odrl:duty [
      odrl:assignee _:serviceProvider;
      odrl:action xxx:serve;
      odrl:constraint [
          # the constraint of serving data with 99% uptime
      ]
    ]    

Of course my representation is not compatible with how ODRL currently defines odrl:duty.
My question is: does this look conceptually wrong to you?

Thanks for your feedback,

Antoine

Received on Saturday, 20 February 2016 17:34:13 UTC