- From: simon via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:09:17 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
> But if so, isn't this expressed by saying that if there is an odrl:hasPolicy relationship between two resources then this implies a dct:license as well? This is perfectly expressed by using the axiom: > > `odrl:hasPolicy rdfs:subPropertyOf dct:license .` iirc, back when we discussed #184 it was more about being able to integrate with existing license concepts.. I never thought about the issue of ontology hijacking. and while I still think that > while every license is also a policy, every policy isn't necessarily a license I'm perfectly fine with switching `odrl:hasPolicy` and `dct:license` (we should stick with either `dc:` or `dct:` though). -- GitHub Notification of comment by simonstey Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/286#issuecomment-353047011 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2017 12:09:18 UTC