- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:11:51 +0200
- To: <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Hi Karen, all, There should be a connection to ODRL indeed, especially if DCAT is going to handle fine-grained access rights. ODRL is quite formal, but it can also be relatively simple for simple needs, and it allows for some 'shortcuts' like [3] that will be more amenable simple uses and compatible with basic rights/access models like dc:rights (see motivations for [3] at [4]). What would be really good is if our group could work on our access-related requirements before their CR period ends. We could flag it, if there's anything we'd have to need - or complain about. But I'm not sure we'll have the bandwidth (when is it due?). By the way I had raised one ODRL-related issue on our github, not about DCAT but DQV [5] Cheers, Antoine [3] https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#policy-has [4] https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/184 [5] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/5 On 15/09/17 16:50, Karen Coyle wrote: > Two documents from the Rights and Permissions working group have reached > candidate status: > > * ODRL Information Model [1] > * ODRL Vocabulary & Expression [2] > > I've added these to the list of related W3C documents for our > consideration. One possibility is that DCAT could hand off to an ODRL > profile for the access rights. Admittedly, though, ODRL looks to be more > formal than may be necessary for our purposes. Worth a discussion. > > [1] https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/ > [2] https://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/ >
Received on Monday, 18 September 2017 10:12:24 UTC