Re: Introducing ODRL policies

On 31 Jul 2014, at 22:17, Víctor Rodríguez Doncel <vrodriguez@fi.upm.es> wrote:

> Dear all, 
> 
> In the Draft Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) Ontology, there is an example of the utmost importance, which I copy here for your convenience (boldface and red is mine).
> 
> @prefix odrl: <http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/> .
> @prefix dct: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
> 
> <http://example.com/asset:9898> dct:license <http://example.com/policy:0099> .
> 
> <http://example.com/policy:0099>
> 	a odrl:Set;
> 	odrl:permission odrl:reproduce ;
> 	odrl:prohibition odrl:modify .
> I wonder myself about the following issues: 
> 1. Why are we choosing dct:license? Shouldn't we have had a property called: "odrl:policy"?
> 2. Why not others? (dct:accessRights etc.)?

Hi Victor...I think the reason we do not have a odrl:policy property is that our model has always assigned the asset from within the Policy.

Having said that, it might be useful to also have an odrl:policy property to support the use case in the example.

And, odrl:policy can then be made more specific in other communities (eg a DC licence).


Cheers...
Renato Iannella
Semantic Identity
http://semanticidentity.com
Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206