Re: [poe] Role of the ODRL Common Vocabulary and of Profiles

I agree that the Web Architecture Extensibility provides a good outline for "how to extend a specification".
But in this sense I can't get the value of "interpret the vocab term 'as is'" - what "is" in this case?
How should a party interpret this received Policy (see Example 12 of the IM):
```
{
    "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl.jsonld",
    "@type": "Offer",
    "uid": "http://example.com/policy:1012",
    "permission": [{
            "target": "http://example.com/music:1012",
            "assigner": "http://example.com/org:abc",
            "action": "ziplahuck"
     }]
}
```
... what "is" the action ziplahuck? It may be a valid identifier but an identifier does not share any semantics. And there is no must for accessing an identifier IRI and getting semantics delivered.
Back to the Web Architecture Extensions: it provides two options for unknown terms
* "must understand" = terms which cannot be understood are treated as an error
* "must ignore" = terms which cannot be understood are ignored = the Policy is processed as if this term does not exist.
Both options require that terms must be understood for a processing conforming to the specification, there is no option "treat a term which cannot be understood like a term which can be understood".
I'm afraid that allowing the use of terms with unknown semantics would undermine the status of ODRL as a standard.


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/210#issuecomment-318913270 using your GitHub account

Received on Sunday, 30 July 2017 16:38:00 UTC