- From: Renato Iannella <renato.iannella@monegraph.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 22:47:53 +1000
- To: W3C POE WG <public-poe-wg@w3.org>
> On 7 Sep 2016, at 18:07, Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at> wrote: > > I.e., if ODRL allows to express xyz, but there is no requirement/uc asking for the possibility to express xyz whatsoever, then why carrying xyz over to POE? Hmmm…this would be inconsistent to our ODRL V2.1 “baseline” approach. It would mean, to be consistent, that we needed a UC for everything that is already in ODRL V2.1 We did a large “clean-up” of ODRL V2.1 from V2.0 and deprecated a lot of vocab terms that were not being used (or referred to other vocabs). See, for example: https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/vocab/2.1/#section-Change But, if there is something *specific* in the current ODRL V2.1 (our WDs now) that members think should be reviewed, then we should also look into that. Renato Iannella, Monegraph Co-Chair, W3C Permissions & Obligations Expression (POE) Working Group
Received on Wednesday, 7 September 2016 12:48:39 UTC