Re: ODRL Validator document - communication considerations

Thanks a lot,

I have not been able to simulate the "proxy/gateway" and could not  
reproduce the error.
I simply updated the API with those headers, but totally blind.

I hope I can reproduce it from somewhere else

Víctor

Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at> escribió:

> Hi!
>
>> I have not been able to reproduce the "firewall" problem, but I guess
>> it is a CORS problem.
>
> Yep, that's exactly it.. On my Siemens Laptop I can't fiddle with  
> FF's CORS settings (i.e.  
> security.mixed_content.block_display_content == true) and as such  
> aren't able to run any validation (cf. cors.png)
>
> It runs fine if security.mixed_content.block_display_content ==  
> false (cf. cors_allowed.png)
>
> Maybe something along the lines of [1-3] helps to fix that issue.
>
> br, simon
>
> [1]  
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20035101/why-does-my-javascript-get-a-no-access-control-allow-origin-header-is-present
> [2]  
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/25316393/keep-getting-no-access-control-allow-origin-error-with-xmlhttprequest
> [3]  
> http://www.codingpedia.org/ama/how-to-add-cors-support-on-the-server-side-in-java-with-jersey/
>
> ---
> DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal
> Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna
>
> www: http://www.steyskal.info/  twitter: @simonsteys
>
> Am 2017-09-19 00:21, schrieb vrodriguez@fi.upm.es:
>> Simon, all,
>>
>> Have you tested the methods from the Swagger documentation?
>> http://odrlapi.appspot.com/apidoc/index.html
>>
>> I have not been able to reproduce the "firewall" problem, but I guess
>> it is a CORS problem.
>>
>> Victor
>>
>> vrodriguez@fi.upm.es escribió:
>>
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> The first time you try, it can take long (30secs?); and you may  
>>> have  to reload the page.
>>> Successive tests are fast. If still it does not work, I would like  
>>>  to see the text you are trying :)
>>>
>>> Thanks for testing!
>>> Víctor
>>>
>>> "Michael Steidl (IPTC)" <mdirector@iptc.org> escribió:
>>>
>>>> Hi Victor and Simon,
>>>>
>>>> thanks for being behind this issue.
>>>>
>>>> This morning I’ve thrown the JSON-LD of Example 16 into the  
>>>> sandbox  – and the spinner is spinning, and spinning …
>>>>
>>>> Maybe a tiny particle is missing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: vrodriguez@fi.upm.es [mailto:vrodriguez@fi.upm.es]
>>>> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 8:09 PM
>>>> To: simon.steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
>>>> Cc: Michael Steidl (IPTC) <mdirector@iptc.org>;  
>>>> nmihindu@fi.upm.es;  'W3C POE WG' <public-poe-wg@w3.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: ODRL Validator document - communication considerations
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Simon: Thanks a lot! Perfect!
>>>> Now everything works smoothly.
>>>>
>>>> Michael: You can now try the normalizer/validator   
>>>> http://odrlapi.appspot.com/ even with JSON-LD
>>>>
>>>> At least I just tried this as input:
>>>>
>>>> {
>>>>   "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl.jsonld",
>>>>   "@type": "odrl:Set",
>>>>   "@id": "http://example.com/policy:1010",
>>>>   "target": " <http://example.com/asset:9898>   
>>>> http://example.com/asset:9898",
>>>>   "permission": [{
>>>>       "action": "odrl:reproduce",
>>>>       "assigner": "http://example.com/assigner:88",
>>>>       "duty": [{
>>>>               "action": "odrl:attribute",
>>>>               "attributedParty": "http://example.com/owner:9898"
>>>>       }]
>>>>   }],
>>>>   "prohibition": [{
>>>>       "action": "odrl:translate"
>>>>   }]
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> And I got the correct output:
>>>>
>>>> <http://example.com/policy:1010>
>>>>       a                 odrl:Set ;
>>>>       odrl:permission   [ a              odrl:Permission ;
>>>>                           odrl:action    odrl:reproduce ;
>>>>                           odrl:assigner   
>>>> <http://example.com/assigner:88> ;
>>>>                           odrl:duty      [ a                       
>>>> odrl:Duty ;
>>>>                                            odrl:action             
>>>> odrl:attribute ;
>>>>                                            odrl:attributedParty    
>>>> <http://example.com/owner:9898>
>>>>                                          ] ;
>>>>                           odrl:target    <   
>>>> <http://example.com/asset:9898> http://example.com/asset:9898>
>>>>                         ] ;
>>>>       odrl:prohibition  [ a            odrl:Prohibition ;
>>>>                           odrl:action  odrl:translate ;
>>>>                           odrl:target  <   
>>>> <http://example.com/asset:9898> http://example.com/asset:9898>
>>>>                         ] .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Although perhaps it should return JSON-LD if the input is JSON-LD.
>>>>
>>>> Víctor
>>>>
>>>> "simon.steyskal" <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at   
>>>> <mailto:simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at> > escribió:
>>>>
>>>>> try "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl.jsonld",
>>>>> as context
>>>>> Sent from Samsung tablet.
>>>>> -------- Original message --------From: vrodriguez@fi.upm.es   
>>>>> <mailto:vrodriguez@fi.upm.es>  Date:
>>>>> 9/15/17  19:06  (GMT+01:00) To: Simon Steyskal
>>>>> <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at <mailto:simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at> > Cc:   
>>>>> "Michael Steidl (IPTC)"
>>>>> <mdirector@iptc.org <mailto:mdirector@iptc.org> >,   
>>>>> nmihindu@fi.upm.es <mailto:nmihindu@fi.upm.es> , 'W3C POE WG'
>>>>> <public-poe-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-poe-wg@w3.org> > Subject:  
>>>>> Re:  ODRL Validator document -
>>>>> communication considerations
>>>>> can you copy the example?
>>>>> I selected as input data "JSON-LD" and copied directly the example 1
>>>>> with little success:
>>>>>
>>>>> {
>>>>> "@context": {
>>>>>    "odrl": "http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/"
>>>>>    },
>>>>>    "@type": "odrl:Set",
>>>>>    "@id": "http://example.com/policy:1010",
>>>>>    "permission": [{
>>>>>        "target": "http://example.com/asset:9898",
>>>>>        "action": "odrl:read"
>>>>>    }],
>>>>>    "prohibition": [{
>>>>>        "target": "http://example.com/asset:9898",
>>>>>        "action": "odrl:reproduce"
>>>>>    }]
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at   
>>>>> <mailto:simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at> > escribió:
>>>>>
>>>>>> easy rdf worked for me..
>>>>>> this happens usually when certain properties aren't properly defined
>>>>>> in the context file
>>>>>> simon
>>>>>> -------- Original message --------From: vrodriguez@fi.upm.es   
>>>>>> <mailto:vrodriguez@fi.upm.es>  Date:
>>>>>> 9/15/17  18:45  (GMT+01:00) To: "Michael Steidl (IPTC)"
>>>>>> <mdirector@iptc.org <mailto:mdirector@iptc.org> >,   
>>>>>> nmihindu@fi.upm.es <mailto:nmihindu@fi.upm.es>  Cc: 'W3C POE WG'
>>>>>> <public-poe-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-poe-wg@w3.org> > Subject:   
>>>>>> Re: ODRL Validator document -
>>>>>> communication considerations
>>>>>> Nandana, Michael,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I need your help here,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I introduce the JSON-LD examples of the IM spec in the
>>>>>> http://www.easyrdf.org/converter or in
>>>>>> http://rdf-translator.appspot.com/ I get no result (almost empty). Can
>>>>>> you please remind me what else had to be done to do the conversion?
>>>>>> Libraries (ODRLAPI, Jena) also fail...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have modified the http://odrlapi.appspot.com to understand also
>>>>>> RDF/XML and JSON-LD but first I need good working examples...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Víctor
>>>>>>
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> "@context": {
>>>>>>    "odrl": "http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/"
>>>>>>    },
>>>>>>    "@type": "odrl:Set",
>>>>>>    "@id": "http://example.com/policy:1010",
>>>>>>    "permission": [{
>>>>>>        "target": "http://example.com/asset:9898",
>>>>>>        "action": "odrl:reproduce",
>>>>>>        "assigner": "http://example.com/assigner:88",
>>>>>>        "duty": [{
>>>>>>                "action": "odrl:attribute",
>>>>>>                "attributedParty": "http://example.com/owner:9898"
>>>>>>        }]
>>>>>>    }],
>>>>>>    "prohibition": [{
>>>>>>        "target": "http://example.com/asset:9898",
>>>>>>        "action": "odrl:translate"
>>>>>>    }]
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Michael Steidl (IPTC)" <mdirector@iptc.org   
>>>>>> <mailto:mdirector@iptc.org> > escribió:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Victor,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks for your work on an ODRL Validator (and Evaluator) and   
>>>>>>> creating the
>>>>>>> document at https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Validation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking into that document raised for me some issues regarding how to
>>>>>>> communicate ODRL related to the IM of the CR:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *        A key issue from my point of view is that the IM  
>>>>>>> shows  all examples
>>>>>>> only in JSON-LD, while the Validator doc shows only Turtle   
>>>>>>> syntax. A person
>>>>>>> who reads the IM will get familiar with the JSON-LD syntax - and its
>>>>>>> specialities - and it may be hard to transform this quickly  
>>>>>>> into  Turtle in
>>>>>>> the reader's head.
>>>>>>> *        Question: could we recommend a web service for   
>>>>>>> translating JSON-LD
>>>>>>> into Turtle to support such readers?
>>>>>>> *        Terminology: (goal: using the same terms in the IM  
>>>>>>> and  the Validator
>>>>>>> document)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *        Normalization 3: Applying inheritance rules
>>>>>>> The IM does not use the term "inheritance rules" but "inheritance
>>>>>>> mechanism"
>>>>>>> - is it ok, to adopt that?
>>>>>>> *        Normalization 4. Interiorizing policy-level properties
>>>>>>> This section is about IM section 2.7.1. headlined "Compact   
>>>>>>> Policy" and this
>>>>>>> is included "It is RECOMMENDED that compact ODRL Policies be  
>>>>>>> expanded to
>>>>>>> atomic Policies when being processed for conformance."
>>>>>>> I suggest to name this section 4: "Expanding Compact Policies"
>>>>>>> *        Normalization 5. Expanding from compound to irreducible Rules
>>>>>>> Section 2.7 in the IM names the target of expanding compounded  
>>>>>>> properties
>>>>>>> the "atomic equivalent".
>>>>>>> - the target "Rules" in the current heading is wrong, this IM   
>>>>>>> section only
>>>>>>> talks about properties.
>>>>>>> - I suggest to name this section 5: "Expanding compound Rule   
>>>>>>> properties to
>>>>>>> atomic equivalents"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's all, thanks for considering.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michael

Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2017 14:38:16 UTC