- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 18:22:20 +0100
- To: Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
- Cc: W3C POE WG <public-poe-wg@w3.org>
Thanks Simon, This definitely looks good to me and I'm all for using this approach in the test suite. Reading through the model, I noted further validity rules: 3.3 Party A Party must have a uid identifier of the Party A Party must have a function indicating the role undertaken by the Party. 3.5 Rule A Rule must have an Action via the action property. 3.5.3 Duty A Duty must only be associated with a Permission 3.6.1 An Atomic Constraint must have a leftOperand - the left operand An Atomic Constraint must have an operator- the logical operation An Atomic Constraint must have a rightOperand - the right operand (only required if no rightOperandReference appears) An Atomic Constraint must have a rightOperandReference - a reference to a right operand (only required if no rightOperand appears) 3.6.1 "... the rightOperand/Reference, such as “EU currency”. Should be "... the rightOperand/Reference, such as “Euro”. 3.6.2 The Compound Constraint class has the following properties: A Compound Constraint must have a leftOperand - the left operand A Compound Constraint must have a operator- the logical relationship A Compound Constraint must have a rightOperand - the right operand 3.6.2 The processing model for Compound Constraints includes: The left and right operands must both be Atomic Constraints. The left and right operands must not be the same Atomic Constraint. The operator must only be of the values; or, xor, and, andSequence. Other values may be defined in ODRL Profiles exclusively for the use of Compound Constraints. This (again) raises the issue about handling profiles that might change the core cardinality constraints. 3.10 If present, the value of the inheritAllowed property must take one of the following values (true|false). I have not collected all the ODRL Processing rules but that's probably a near future task. HTH Phil On 11/05/2017 09:31, Simon Steyskal wrote: >> We can shortcut that development effort by providing the SHACL files >> and pointing people to the SHACL playground. > > I gave it a shot [1]. > > br, simon > > [1] > https://github.com/simonstey/ODRL-SHACL-Shapes/wiki/SHACL-Shapes-for-validating-ODRL-Policies > > > --- > DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal > Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna > > www: http://www.steyskal.info/ twitter: @simonsteys > > Am 2017-05-11 09:09, schrieb Simon Steyskal: >> Hi! >> >>> I have not followed the latest evolution, so I do >>> not know who stable it is now; Simon or Phil could tell us. Also: are >>> there implementations for SHACL, is there a tool I can install on my >>> machine for SHACL? Relying on a single playground site may not be good >>> enough (eg, if an implementer wants to check things locally) >> >> yes, cf. http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-test-suite/. >> Application-wise, you could either use the free version of TBC [1] or >> use Holger's open-source Java SHACL API [2]. >> >>> I have just seen a request going by whereby SHACL should go to >>> Proposed Recommendation soon >> >> yes, we voted on that yesterday [3] :) >> >> [1] http://www.topquadrant.com/downloads/topbraid-composer-install/ >> [2] https://github.com/TopQuadrant/shacl >> [3] https://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-shapes-minutes.html#resolution07 >> >> >> --- >> DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal >> Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna >> >> www: http://www.steyskal.info/ twitter: @simonsteys >> >> Am 2017-05-11 08:48, schrieb Ivan Herman: >>>> On 11 May 2017, at 08:48, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11 May 2017, at 01:54, Renato Iannella >>>> <renato.iannella@monegraph.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 10 May 2017, at 18:42, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote: >>>> I've also been thinking more about the SHACL issue. If we don't >>>> provide those, then how will someone test whether their ODRL is >>>> valid? >>>> >>>> What did the W3C Annotation WG use? >>> >>> We did not use SHACL and it was more a 'manual' check for the test >>> cases. But remember when we did the testing the situation around SHACL >>> was fairly messy. I have not followed the latest evolution, so I do >>> not know who stable it is now; Simon or Phil could tell us. Also: are >>> there implementations for SHACL, is there a tool I can install on my >>> machine for SHACL? Relying on a single playground site may not be good >>> enough (eg, if an implementer wants to check things locally) >>> >>> I have just seen a request going by whereby SHACL should go to >>> Proposed Recommendation soon >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>>> Ivan >>>> >>>>> Renato Iannella, Monegraph >>>>> Co-Chair, W3C Permissions & Obligations Expression (POE) Working >>>>> Group >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>>> Publishing@W3C Technical Lead >>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>> >>> ---- >>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>> Publishing@W3C Technical Lead >>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > -- Phil Archer Data Strategist, W3C http://www.w3.org/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Friday, 12 May 2017 17:22:21 UTC