Yes, I support the idea of having such a property because I believe it can become a common case in non ODRL-centric settings... Víctor El 04/08/2014 8:59, Renato Iannella escribió: > > On 31 Jul 2014, at 22:17, Víctor Rodríguez Doncel > <vrodriguez@fi.upm.es <mailto: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 >
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2014 16:54:25 UTC