Re: ODRL Profile for Linked Data

Hi!

I would be available today but I'm also fine with postponing it to next 
week.

1) Yes, that was the intention.
2) I would also prefer to define our own concepts but ofc map them to 
related ones if possible.
3) Agree, I basically wanted to specify the notion of extended relations 
as defined in the link you provided.
4) Well to some extend.. While odrl:conflict only allows to state that 
in case of conflicting rules either the permission or prohibition takes 
precedence, odrl-ld:precedenceOver would allow to specify that specific 
rules (if they are applicable too) can take precedence over others 
regardless their respective type.

5) Given that I'm part of the RDF Shapes WG I'm definitely in favour of 
using SHACL constraints as much as possible :)

cheers,
simon

---
DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal
Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna

www: http://www.steyskal.info/  twitter: @simonsteys

Am 2015-06-04 11:16, schrieb Víctor Rodríguez Doncel:
> Simon, Serena, Sabrina, all
> 
>  We had scheduled a call at 15.00 CEST for the ODRL Linked Data
> profile. Are you at ESWC? If you prefer, we can also postpone it.
> 
>  In any case, I have seen Simon's edition, and I have further edited
> the spec at:
> https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/wiki/ODRL_Linked_Data_Profile [1].
> In particular, I have included the SPARQL UPDATE actions as suggested,
> and further refined the description of assets.
> 
>  SMALL QUESTIONS ON SIMON'S EDITION:
>  1) Should odrl-ld:query be the superclass of odrl-ld:select,
> odrl-ld:construct, etc.?
>  2) Is our policy defining new classes (e.g. odrl-ld:License) or
> re-using existing ones (e.g. http://purl.org/dc/terms/LicenseDocument
> [2], cc:License). I advocate for the first one, so that the semantics
> is entirely under our control, but adding the due mappings.
>  3) I think the definition of odr-ld:AndRuleSet etc. overlaps that of
> the extened spec here:
> https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/model/2-1/#section-5 [3]
>  However, I would say that it is ill defined so I would prefer
> defining our odrl-ld:AndRuleSet etc. We have adopted similar
> solutions.
>  4) Is anyhow odrl-ld:precedenceOver related to odrl:conflict? Maybe
> we can explicitly say the odrl-ld precedence "precedes" odrl:conflict
> :)
> 
>  BIG QUESTION: ARE WE FINALLY DECLARING RDF SHAPES? I am in favour.
>  Assuming sh stands for: http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl# [4] we may
> include the following:
>  odrl:Rule a sh:Shape ;
>  sh:property [
>          sh:predicate odrl:target;
>          sh:valueType xsd:anyURI;
>          sh:minCount 1 ; sh:maxCount 1
>      ] ;
>  and contraints of the sort. What do you think?
> 
>  Please confirm if you are attending today's call or we move it to the
> next week!
> 
>  Regards,
>  Víctor
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/wiki/ODRL_Linked_Data_Profile
> [2] http://purl.org/dc/terms/LicenseDocument
> [3] https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/model/2-1/#section-5
> [4] http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#

Received on Thursday, 4 June 2015 09:31:13 UTC