Re: [poe] Relation to other standard frameworks for expressing rights statements

I like a lot this approach

El 21/06/2017 a las 12:21, aisaac escribió:
> I insist it is the same case. The DCAT documentation uses this 
> editorial trick to include Title in their model (it's visible next to 
> the other elements) in the case where they have not created the 'real' 
> property in their own namespace.
> Someone who would just look at the Turtle file would say, 'hey but why 
> this stupid model doesn't give any title to datasets'? The DCAT 
> documentation says 'well we do have a title in our model but we've 
> been smart and re-used it from elsewhere instead of creating it 
> ourselves'.
>
> We've done it in DQV recently too: see for example 
> https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dqv/#dcterms:conformsTo
>
> You could add more narrative text to the Deprecated terms Appendix as 
> you suggest, but I feel it won't be great:
> - it will not be very visible - much less visible than the editorial 
> trick that DCAT uses.
> - it will be difficult and look awkward, because not all the elements 
> in the Deprecated terms Appendix should be treated the same way. Again 
> some elements there are truly deprecated (not in the model anymore) 
> while other are 'delegated' to other namespace.
>
> So I'd really push for taking the DCAT editorial approach, which means 
> for POE, and for the case of commercializing, that the URL
> https://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#term-Action
> that currently appears in the instances of odrl:Action at 
> https://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#term-Action
> would now refer to a fully fledged HTML sub-section between 
> https://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#term-attribute and 
> https://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#term-compensate
> This section would have the usual definition box, except that instead 
> of having an identifier in the ODRL namespace it would have an 
> identifier in the CC namespace.
>
> Note that in accordance you should update the ODRL turtle file to 
> declare cc:CommercialUse an instance of odrl:Action. Which is 
> perfectly legit and would start to really answer my question on the 
> mapping between CC and POE. Namely, for one of the CC permissions 
> there is a mapping, and it is an rdf:type statement to odrl:Action.
>
> Then ideally you may have an annex that sums up all your mappings, 
> including the discussion on cc:License vs dcmiterms:RightsStatements 
> vs dcmiterms:License vs odrl:Policy that has been discussed at #184. 
> But that could be the step afterwards.
>
> Am I making any sense?
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were assigned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub 
> <https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/158#issuecomment-310036002>, or 
> mute the thread 
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFLs5fuHQNZQFuC75GLzxj6S2wpaVd_6ks5sGO64gaJpZM4NNqQV>.
>


-- 
Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel
D3205 - Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
ETS de Ingenieros Informáticos
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Campus de Montegancedo s/n
Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, Spain
Tel. (+34) 91336 3753
Skype: vroddon3



-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by vroddon
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/158#issuecomment-310037303 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 21 June 2017 10:28:03 UTC