Re: ODRL RDF expression

On 3 Apr 2013, at 00:27, Mo McRoberts <mo.mcroberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote:

> I've made a first attempt at expressing the ODRL common vocabulary and core model as RDF (with a little — although not very much — OWL sprinkled over it for interop).

Mo, great work, and thanks ;-)

> [Discussion of the finer points of the RDF expression follows...]
> 
> Constraint is defined as a class which consists of operator, rightOperand and status properties. However, the rightOperand property is intended to be abstract (i.e., not actually used in practice), and the various types of constraint are sub-properties of rightOperand.\\

We have small update to the Constraint class [1] - we have added "dataType" and "unit" attributes.

Also, for the Vocab [2], we have added a new "license" term.

> ... is expressed as an RDF instance in the form ...
> 
> a v:Constraint ;
>  v:operator v:lteq ;
>  v:count 1 .

That looks nicer.

> Within the policy, I've defined the permission and prohibition properties to have a range of v:Action *or* m:Permission and m:Prohibition (respectively), to allow simplified expression. Thus, you can say:

Great.

> Finally, as will be evident in the examples, the relationship between a policy and an asset it relates to has been left quite "loose"; rather than have a concrete relationship between a policy and the asset, I've left this effectively undefined but employed the dct:license predicate (from the Dublin Core Metadata Terms) to relate the asset to the policy in line with fairly common practice elsewhere.

So there is no property from the Policy to the Asset? 

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

[1] http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/work/2-0-core-model-constraint-draft-changes/
[2] http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/work/2-0-common-vocabulary-constraint-draft-changes/

Received on Thursday, 4 April 2013 04:09:43 UTC