- From: Michael Steidl \(IPTC\) <mdirector@iptc.org>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 10:05:09 +0200
- To: "'Renato Iannella'" <ri@semanticidentity.com>
(forwarding to list from Michael) Renato, you write "... payments can be expressed by assets." - what are the alternatives to using assets? Coming back to my initial proposal: we think of something like this below for expressing that a minimum fee of 150 USD must be paid for the asset: <o:duty> <o:action name="ov:pay"/> <o:constraint name="ov:paymentvalue" operator="ov:gteq" rightOperand="150.00" rOpDatatype="xs:decimal" rOpUnits="iso4217a:USD" /> </o:duty> New are: - the constraint name "paymentvalue" - the attribute rOpDatatype: it defines the datatype of the @rightOperand value by using one of the XML Schema 1.0 data types - the attribute rOpUnits: it defines the units which are applied to the value of @rightOperand using a QName/QCode. To add a very close use case: setting the date of a payment (which does not require units): <o:constraint name="ov:paymentduedate" operator="ov:lteq" rightOperand="2012-07-31" rOpDatatype="xs:date" /> This combination of a value, its data type and its units is shown in many examples in the RDF area for payments and other facets of an asset which can be measured (weight, size etc.) - so we feel we don't propose something completely new. Best, Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Renato Iannella [mailto:ri@semanticidentity.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 7:33 AM > To: ODRL Community Group > Subject: Re: odrl-ISSUE-12: Make asserting flexible values more flexible > [ODRL Version 2.0 XML Encoding (Public) ] > > > On 21 Jun 2012, at 06:07, ODRL Community Group Issue Tracker wrote: > >> As the example 4.6 of the XML Encoding page of the ODRL specs > (http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/two/xml/) shows the concrete value > of a license fee has to be expressed as Asset. >> As licensing fees a) are flexible and b) a very large amount of them exist > IPTC members raised the business requirement to have a more flexible way > for expressing such literal values in ODRL. >> We could think about adding attributes like @valuetype, @value and > @valueunit to the asset element and to define some indicator (e.g. a special > @relation value) for this use case. > > Hi michael - we purposely did not define any semantics/structure for > payments (as we felt this would be domain specific) so instead we simply > said that a payment can be expressed as an Asset. > > The examples show assets from the UBL schema, but more complex > payments (and terms) can be expressed using Good Relations [1]. > > Can you give an example of the additional attributes you mention and what > they would represent? > > Cheers... > Renato Iannella > Semantic Identity > http://semanticidentity.com > Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206 > > [1] > http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/goodrelations/v1#PriceSpecification
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 05:22:08 UTC