Re: RightsML in PROF

Dear Michael, dear Nick,

My two cents:


1. Versioning

I think the way this can be done depends very much on the specific purpose and use case. As a general rule, IMO each version of a profile should be better modelled as a different prof:Profile (with its own URI), linked with the other versions.

PROF is not specifically dealing with versioning, but one of its "complementary" vocabularies, ADMS, includes a number of properties to link an asset to its previous, next, and latest version (adms:prev, adms:next, adms:last):

https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-adms/#the-adms-domain-model


2. dct:format / dct:conformsTo

Concerning the HTML example Nick was pointing to, I think that making dct:conformsTo pointing to the HTML spec is actually correct, although possibly redundant. But you could argue here that you may point to the spec of the specific HTML version used (HTML4, HTML5), which would give additional information. Another example (not applying here, I guess): in case HTML+RDFa is used, dct:conformsTo can point to the HTML+RDFa spec.

I would however suggest modifying the Turtle related examples. In those cases, dct:conformsTo would better point to the specification of the vocabularies used, instead of the Turtle specification. So, the following one:

_:2  # The ODRL Core Profile vocabulary terms
    a profile:ResourceDescriptor ;
    profile:hasRole role:vocabulary ;
    profile:hasArtifact <tbd> ;
    dct:title "ODRL Core Profile Version 2.2" ;
    dct:issued "tbd"^^xsd:date ;
    dct:publisher "W3C" ;
    dct:format <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/turtle> ;
    dct:conformsTo <https://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/> .

should rather be

_:2  # The ODRL Core Profile vocabulary terms
    a profile:ResourceDescriptor ;
    profile:hasRole role:vocabulary ;
    profile:hasArtifact <tbd> ;
    dct:title "ODRL Core Profile Version 2.2" ;
    dct:issued "tbd"^^xsd:date ;
    dct:publisher "W3C" ;
    dct:format <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/turtle> ;
    dct:conformsTo <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/> .

or

    dct:conformsTo <https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/> .

whereas this one

rml:ProfileVocabulary-ttl  # The RightsML Profile vocabulary terms
    a profile:ResourceDescriptor ;
    profile:hasRole role:vocabulary ;
    profile:hasArtifact <https://iptc.org/std/RightsML/2.0/RightsML_2.0-ontology.ttl> ;
    dct:title "IPTC RightsML Standard 2.0" ;
    owl:versionInfo "2.0"^^xsd:string ;
    dct:issued "2018-09-03"^^xsd:date ;
    dct:publisher "IPTC - International Press Telecommunications Council" ;
    dct:format <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/turtle> ;
    dct:conformsTo <https://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/>;

should rather be

rml:ProfileVocabulary-ttl  # The RightsML Profile vocabulary terms
    a profile:ResourceDescriptor ;
    profile:hasRole role:vocabulary ;
    profile:hasArtifact <https://iptc.org/std/RightsML/2.0/RightsML_2.0-ontology.ttl> ;
    dct:title "IPTC RightsML Standard 2.0" ;
    owl:versionInfo "2.0"^^xsd:string ;
    dct:issued "2018-09-03"^^xsd:date ;
    dct:publisher "IPTC - International Press Telecommunications Council" ;
    dct:format <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/turtle> ;
    dct:conformsTo <https://www.w3.org/TR/dx-prof/>;


Cheers,

Andrea

----
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical Project Officer
European Commission DG JRC
Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
Unit B6 - Digital Economy
Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

----
The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
position of the European Commission.


________________________________________
From: Michael Steidl (NIT) <mwsteidl@newsit.biz>
Sent: 03 May 2019 12:15:55
To: 'Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park)'; 'Renato Iannella'; public-odrl@w3.org
Cc: PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA); 'Rob Atkinson'
Subject: RE: RightsML in PROF

Hi Nick,
thanks for your feedback.

See below my comments prefixed with [MS].

Seeing Renato’s agenda I guess we can dig into that at the call on Monday.

Best,
Michael

From: Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park) <Nicholas.Car@csiro.au>
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 2:45 AM
To: Michael Steidl (NIT) <mwsteidl@newsit.biz>; 'Renato Iannella' <r@iannel.la>; public-odrl@w3.org
Cc: andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu; 'Rob Atkinson' <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Subject: Re: RightsML in PROF

Hi Michael,

Thanks for doing this since usage like this is what we need to improve PROF! Hopefully the process has been useful for you too…
Some responses to your questions:


  *   The resources of the ODRL Core profile are blank nodes, while the resources for another ODRL profile are in a corresponding namespace. Both is ok?
     *   Sure: the graph associations in the RDF don’t care



  *   I suggest to use dct:issued with all profile resources – e.g. in spec documents typos could be fixed and this results in a later issue date than the vocabulary
     *   Agreed. Our guide for ‘dataset/document type’ properties is to use whatever DCAt uses or whatever is common in your domain


  *   A big issue is the URI of an ODRL profile and versions of the profile: can a PROF profile only have single resource with the e.g. role:specification, or multiple with different hasArtifact URLs and different versions (versionInfo).
     *   Multiple! There’s no restriction on Profile’s hasResource or the numbers or types of Roles of ReseourceDescriptors. I’ve used Profiles with multiple ResourceDescriptors with role Specification before
     *   I imagine that within a domain/system, a set of particular ResoureDescripts could be required, such as all W3C Recs having a Guidance and a Specification ResourceDescriptor, so you could profile PROF to make such constraints.



  *   Or is it required, also by ODRL considerations, to have a specific URI for each version of a profile – in this case we would need a new URI for the next version of ODRL Core.
     *   Clearly an ODRL choice…
[MS] Agreed. So more an ODRL-internal consideration: an ODRL Policy validation rule is that ODRL profiles define which (sub-)classes and which terms (SKOS concepts) may be used for specific ODRL properties. As a new version of an ODRL Profile may include more (permitted or prohibited) ODRL actions than the old one it is highly relevant for a proper validation to know if e.g. the RightsML 2.0 profile or the RightsML 2.1 profile is used for a Policy. Does that mean two different ODRL profile URIs must be used?


  *   Finally: an ODRL profile has this document defining it and this document may be published as web resource. But how to let people know about it – an ODRL Policy has only the ODRL profile URI. Should this document be responded when requesting the ODRL Profile URI if it is a URL?
     *   Can you please rephrase the question? I can’t be sure if there’s something for me/PROF here about relating instance data to the profiles they conform to or if this is purely  an ODRL matter.

[MS] Downgraded to simple questions: this document https://www.iptc.org/std-dev/RightsML/2.0/odrl-profile-RightsML_2.0-draft01.ttl exists.

  1.  What is the role of this document in the ODRL context?
  2.  Should it be used as the key resource defining a specific ODRL profile?
  3.  If 2. is confirmed: how to communicate and/or from where to reference this profile document?

> I suggest to have a quick look into this draft at the ODRL call on Monday, 6 May.
I’d like to join the call again too, if I may.

A couple of notes on your RDF formulation:

[MS] Most of the issued discussed below are based on my use of the ODRL template - https://github.com/w3c/odrl/blob/master/core-profile/odrl-profile-template.ttl – therefore this in an ODRL Community issue.


  *   dct:format/dct:conformsTo
     *   you’ve used pairs like this:

    dct:format <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/html> ;
    dct:conformsTo <https://www.w3.org/TR/html/> .

But this adds no real value since using the HTML format implies/require conformance to HTML, the spec. Better might be something like this:

For the _:1 ResourceDescriptor of http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/core:

    dct:format <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/html> ;
    dct:conformsTo <https://www.w3.org/standards/>.

Ok, I haven’t found a good URI yes to describe what the HTML doc conforms to but I’m trying to indicate here it’s the specification of W3C’s Recommendation, rather than the syntactic specification of HTML which you’ve already conveyed with dct:format.

We will be making heavy use of things conforming to W3C Recs of course so I’d like to work out the best URI to use here for many instances.


  *   publisher
     *   You’ve used dct:publisher "W3C" ; & dct:publisher "IPTC - International Press Telecommunications Council" ;
     *   Could you perhaps use something like:
        *   DC: dc:publisher "W3C" ; & dct:publisher "IPTC - International Press Telecommunications Council" ;
        *   and DCT: dct:publisher <https://www.w3.org/> ; & dct:publisher <https://iptc.org/> ;
        *   Or some other, better, URI to indicate publisher with dct and the textual representation of publisher with just the dc version of the term? Just one of my small attempts to move to URIs rather than text!

Please feel free to describe any further roles for ResourceDescriptors if you feel you need them and we can grow the Roles vocab!

[MS] Going over https://www.w3.org/TR/dx-prof/#resource-roles-vocab I see no needs for more roles from the RightsML context.

Cheers,

Nick


From: "Michael Steidl (NIT)" <mwsteidl@newsit.biz<mailto:mwsteidl@newsit.biz>>
Date: Friday, 3 May 2019 at 2:57 am
To: 'Renato Iannella' <r@iannel.la<mailto:r@iannel.la>>, "public-odrl@w3.org<mailto:public-odrl@w3.org>" <public-odrl@w3.org<mailto:public-odrl@w3.org>>
Cc: Nicholas Car <Nicholas.Car@csiro.au<mailto:Nicholas.Car@csiro.au>>, "andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu<mailto:andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu>" <andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu<mailto:andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu>>, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au<mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au>>
Subject: RE: RightsML in PROF

Hi all,
I’ve used Renato’s ODRL Profile template - https://github.com/w3c/odrl/blob/master/core-profile/odrl-profile-template.ttl - for the ODRL profile of IPTC’s RightsML 2.0.
Its draft 01 of resides at https://www.iptc.org/std-dev/RightsML/2.0/odrl-profile-RightsML_2.0-draft01.ttl

Working on that raised a few questions and comments:

  *   The resources of the ODRL Core profile are blank nodes, while the resources for another ODRL profile are in a corresponding namespace. Both is ok?
  *   I suggest to use dct:issued with all profile resources – e.g. in spec documents typos could be fixed and this results in a later issue date than the vocabulary
  *   A big issue is the URI of an ODRL profile and versions of the profile: can a PROF profile only have single resource with the e.g. role:specification, or multiple with different hasArtifact URLs and different versions (versionInfo).
Or is it required, also by ODRL considerations, to have a specific URI for each version of a profile – in this case we would need a new URI for the next version of ODRL Core.
  *   Finally: an ODRL profile has this document defining it and this document may be published as web resource. But how to let people know about it – an ODRL Policy has only the ODRL profile URI. Should this document be responded when requesting the ODRL Profile URI if it is a URL?

I suggest to have a quick look into this draft at the ODRL call on Monday, 6 May.

Thanks,
Michael

From: Renato Iannella <r@iannel.la<mailto:r@iannel.la>>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 3:11 PM
To: Michael Steidl (NIT) <mwsteidl@newsit.biz<mailto:mwsteidl@newsit.biz>>
Cc: Nicholas.Car@csiro.au<mailto:Nicholas.Car@csiro.au>; Jaroslav Pullmann <jaroslav.pullmann@fit.fraunhofer.de<mailto:jaroslav.pullmann@fit.fraunhofer.de>>; andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu<mailto:andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu>; Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au<mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au>>
Subject: Re: RightsML in PROF

Sure, added 2.2



On 17 Apr 2019, at 22:51, Michael Steidl (NIT) <mwsteidl@newsit.biz<mailto:mwsteidl@newsit.biz>> wrote:

Ok, a good starting point.

This should be considered: versioning of profiles.
http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/core is "The ODRL Core Profile" – in fact “The ODRL 2.2 Core Profile”. I guess a next version of ODRL (2.3 or 3.0) will define additional Things and therefore “The ODRL 2.3 Core Profile” will be different from the “The ODRL 2.2 Core Profile”. Should this be expressed by different URIs of the profile?

(I know, IPTC has no planned versioning of RightsML Profile URIs …)

Best,
Michael

From: Renato Iannella <r@iannel.la<mailto:r@iannel.la>>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 2:25 PM
To: Michael Steidl (NIT) <mwsteidl@newsit.biz<mailto:mwsteidl@newsit.biz>>; Nicholas.Car@csiro.au<mailto:Nicholas.Car@csiro.au>
Cc: Jaroslav Pullmann <jaroslav.pullmann@fit.fraunhofer.de<mailto:jaroslav.pullmann@fit.fraunhofer.de>>; andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu<mailto:andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu>; Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au<mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au>>
Subject: Re: RightML in PROF





On 17 Apr 2019, at 22:15, Michael Steidl (NIT) <mwsteidl@newsit.biz<mailto:mwsteidl@newsit.biz>> wrote:

Is this what you, Renato, meant with “flesh it out”?

I created a (draft) template for describing ODRL Profiles.

See here: https://github.com/w3c/odrl/blob/master/core-profile/odrl-profile-template.ttl

Renato

Received on Friday, 3 May 2019 21:20:38 UTC