- From: Víctor Rodríguez Doncel <vrodriguez@fi.upm.es>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:50:55 +0200
- To: Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk>
- CC: "<public-odrl@w3.org>" <public-odrl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <51F62CEF.5000908@fi.upm.es>
My answer below... El 27/07/2013 9:51, Mo McRoberts escribió: > On 26 Jul 2013, at 14:36, Víctor Rodríguez Doncel <vrodriguez@fi.upm.es> wrote: > >> Well, of course Asset must exist. But your sentence... >> The act of associating a policy with it is what defines it as an ODRL asset. >> ...can be represented very simply and elegantly, with just three statements: >> >> <Asset> rdf:type owl:Class . >> <vocab:target> rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ; >> rdfs:range <Asset> . >> >> Everything that is related to with a "vocab:target" is automatically inferred to be an Asset. > That does not infer that, though, does it? Yes, it does :) > That says that everything related with vocab:target *must be defined as* an Asset; to specify a vocab:target being an instance which was not explicitly stated as being an Asset would be a violation of the schema. No, it isn't :) . Whatever it is, the instance will be classified as an Asset. Without you to declare it, without clashing with your previous class declarations. >> Or even more exactly: >> >> <Asset> rdf:type owl:Class ; >> owl:equivalentClass [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ; >> owl:onProperty [ owl:inverseOf <vocab:target> ] ; >> owl:someValuesFrom owl:Thing >> ] . >> >> Which can be read: "Everything that is range of a vocab:target, and only what is in range of a vocab:target, is an Asset". >> At your choice. This alternative declares that Assets are only such if bound through the vocab:target. I'd say this is over-restrictive and we don't need this. Cheers! Víctor > Or, we can specify that the rdfs:range of :target is owl:Thing, and include a compatibility shim for anything wishing to resolve the 'Asset' URI. > > M. > >> Regards, >> Víctor >> >> >> El 26/07/2013 14:39, Mo McRoberts escribió: >>> Hi Victor, >>> >>> The point is this: >>> >>> In "native" ODRL, it is necessary for an Asset class to exist because there is no other mechanism to model the subject of the policy. >>> >>> In RDF, the subject of the policy will—conceptually—already exist. The act of associating a policy with it is what defines it as an ODRL asset. >>> >>> Thus, the only purpose of the Asset class existing in the RDF ontology is compatibility between expressions of ODRL; there is no benefit to requiring people to define the subject of a policy as being an Asset explicitly in RDF because applying a policy to any thing implicitly indicates that it's an asset. >>> >>> M. >>> >>> On 26 Jul 2013, at 13:29, "Víctor Rodríguez Doncel" <vrodriguez@fi.upm.es> wrote: >>> >>>> Well, the current spec text is very clear to me. >>>> But about this decision, I must be missing something, because I see it very clear. Both Mo: >>>> "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)." >>>> and Koblenz-Landau have a similar idea: >>>> "If Asset isn't the same as Thing, the possible uses-cases of ODRL are restricted" >>>> If we make Asset the same as Thing, any class individual of any ontology on Earth becomes an Asset. >>>> If we dont make Asset the same as Thing, we are not constraining absolutely any possibility (as long as we don't use "disjointAs")... Anything on Earth could be an Asset, if we declare it so, irrespective of the many other classes it can belong to. >>>> ... >>>> Víctor >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> El 26/07/2013 13:59, Mo McRoberts escribió: >>>>> The text currently reads: >>>>> >>>>> “The Asset entity is aimed at identifying the content that is the subject of an ODRL policy, e.g. a media file or ebook. Furthermore, it can be used to represent other Asset entities that are needed to undertake the Policy expression, such as with the Duty entity. The Asset entity is referred to by the Permission and/or Prohibition entities, and also by the Duty entity.” >>>>> >>>>> I would perhaps add a statement to the effect of... >>>>> >>>>> “Where a particular expression of an ODRL policy takes the form of a vocabulary used within a broader context, Asset should be aligned with a generic class in that context. For example, the RDF expression of ODRL considers Asset to be equivalent to owl:Thing.” >>>>> >>>>> Feel free to adjust the words to suit! >>>>> >>>>> M. >>>>> >>>>> On 2013-Jul-22, at 06:03, Renato Iannella >>>>> <ri@semanticidentity.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 16 Jul 2013, at 22:06, Mo McRoberts <mo.mcroberts@bbc.co.uk> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> As it wasn't, Asset exists in the ontology as a compatibility shim and little more. I really think the spec text is where the adjustment ought to be made. >>>>>>> >>>>>> ok, we can update the Model spec (as we have a draft version update [1])...what is the best description for 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/ >>>>> -- >>>>> Mo McRoberts - Analyst - BBC Archive Development, >>>>> Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA, >>>>> MC3 D6, Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TQ, >>>>> 0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and >>>>> may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. >>>>> If you have received it in >>>>> error, please delete it from your system. >>>>> Do not use, copy or disclose the >>>>> information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender >>>>> immediately. >>>>> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails >>>>> sent or received. >>>>> Further communication will signify your consent to >>>>> this. >>>>> ----------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> ---------------------------- >>> >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk >>> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. >>> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. >>> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. >>> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. >>> Further communication will signify your consent to this. >>> --------------------- >> >> -- >> 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 >> > -- 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
Received on Monday, 29 July 2013 08:51:36 UTC