Re: [dxwg] Add on ODRL Policy Example (#1333)

Thanks, @riannella . Please find my replies below.

> 2. In the green NOTE, please also add [ODRL-MODEL] with [ODRL-VOCAB]

Done - see https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1339/commits/1fdb9d9d0fb89591e31956abaa6c4230a2c5f7e7

> 4. After the example can you add a bit more explanatory text:
>    > The above example does not explicitly define the ODRL Asset, so assumes the enclosing identified entity is the subject of the policy as per https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/#policy-has. In addition, the example above follows the ODRL _compact policy_ rules as per https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/#composition-compact.`

Done - see https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1339/commits/1fdb9d9d0fb89591e31956abaa6c4230a2c5f7e7

> 1. Why did you move the hasPolicy to the Distribution level? The policy statements are more relevant at the Dataset/Series level (ie they are not access control statements)

Because rights in DCAT should be specified on `dcat:Distribution` - see usage note in [ยง6.7.5 Property: license](https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat-2/#Property:distribution_license) :

> Information about licenses and rights SHOULD be provided on the level of Distribution. Information about licenses and rights MAY be provided for a Dataset in addition to but not instead of the information provided for the Distributions of that Dataset. Providing license or rights information for a Dataset that is different from information provided for a Distribution of that Dataset SHOULD be avoided as this can create legal conflicts.

Is this conflicting with the definition and use of ODRL policies?

> 3. In the para above that (Starting with "Finally...") I never understood what this means "...in addition to the corresponding [DCTERMS] property that **matches** the same ODRL policy type" ?
>    I do not think there are any DCTERMS that match the ODRL policy type" ?

Yes, probably we need to make the text clearer and add an example.

The idea is to complement the ODRL policy, when possible, with `dcterms:license`, `dcterms:accessRights`, `dcterms:rights`, for systems / catalogues / agents not able to understand ODRL. Of course, the two approaches are not going to be semantically equivalent in most cases.

E.g., considering the current ODRL example, this could be specified as follows:

````turtle
:ds4242 a dcat:Dataset ;
# other dataset properties...
  dcat:distribution [ a dcat:Distribution ;
# other distribution properties...
    dcterms:license <https://example.com/nc-licence> ;
    dcterms:accessRights <http://data.jrc.ec.europa.eu/access-rights/registration-required> ;
    odrl:hasPolicy [ a odrl:Policy ;
      odrl:permission [ a odrl:Permission ;
        odrl:action ( 
          <http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/read>
          <http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/derive> 
        ) 
      ];
      odrl:prohibition [ a odrl:Prohibition ;
        odrl:action <http://creativecommons.org/ns#CommercialUse>
      ] ;
      odrl:obligation [ a odrl:Duty ;
        odrl:action <https://schema.org/RegisterAction> 
      ];
    ] ;
  ] ;
.
````


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by andrea-perego
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1333#issuecomment-809734739 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Monday, 29 March 2021 21:44:36 UTC