Re: Asset as superclass of Policy / Asset not superclass of Policy. Asset same as Thing.

Well,

Asset can be any owl:Thing, the point is that by making them equivalent, 
we are saying that /everything/ is an Asset.

We are saying that any instance of any class ("Astronaut", "Love") *are* 
Assets.
I'd rather to say that any instance of any class *can be* Assets.

Supporting my view, is the text in the specification, which reads "is 
the subject of an ODRL policy".

Víctor

El 16/07/2013 4:09, Renato Iannella escribió:
> On 15 Jul 2013, at 18:09, Mo McRoberts <mo.mcroberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Therefore, I propose maintaining the sameAs relationship between Asset and owl:Thing, and instead modify the spec to define Asset as any thing to which an ODRL policy might be applied (and leave it to the evolution of society, legal frameworks, and so on, to decide what that might be at any given time: if somebody asserts that an ODRL policy applies which is unenforceable because one can't legally or morally apply it, it's no different to an unenforceable policy for any other reason).
> Our _intention_ was to say as little as possible about the Asset - apart from its identifier.
>
> We said: "The Asset entity is aimed at **identifying** the content that is the subject of an ODRL policy..."
>
> (**'s added)
>
> So, in effect, an Asset can be any owl:Thing ;-)
>
> Cheers...
> Renato Iannella
> Semantic Identity
> http://semanticidentity.com
> Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206
>
>


-- 
Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel
D3205 - Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
Facultad de Informática
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Campus de Montegancedo s/n
Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, Spain
Tel. (+34) 91336 3672
Skype: vroddon3