Re: ODRL 2.1 specs - terminology issues

Thanks Michael for your feedback.

The changes look correct.

Víctor

El 24/02/2015 14:55, Michael Steidl (IPTC) escribió:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I tried to have an unbiased look at the different spec documents to 
> find unclear or inconsistent terminology.
>
> Find below proposed changes with "MS notes" added.
>
> ·Common Vocabulary
>
> oSection 1:
> The Common Vocabulary specifies the terms (vocabulary) used by the 
> Core Model [ODRL-MODEL] 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/work/2-0-common-vocabulary-constraint-draft-changes/#section-References>for 
> policy expression needs.
> MS note: as other vocabularies may be used with ODRL "the terms" 
> sounds too strict, "the terms" and nothing else
>
> oSection 2 / 1:
> MS note: the wording implies a specific view on how the URI for the 
> vocabulary and URIs for the terms are associated -- but e.g. W3C SKOS 
> has a much wider view on that and I recommend aligning to it:
> Proposed changes:
> The Namespace URI for identifying the ODRL Version 2.0 Common 
> Vocabulary is defined as:
> (MS note: SKOS has no namespace for vocabularies, only an identifier)
> This Namespace URI must be used in all encodings of ODRL policies to 
> refer to the ODRL Common Vocabulary terms.
> (MS note: this URI identifies the vocabulary -- and nothing else.)
> The Namespace URI uniquely identifies the ODRL Common Vocabulary term 
> by appending the *identifier* of that term.
> change to àA URI identifying an ODRL Common Vocabulary term is created 
> by appending the *identifier* of that term to the URI of the vocabulary.
> (MS note: the current wording is confusing as it says the namespace 
> URI is identifying by appending ... but this makes a different URI!)
>
> oSection 2 / 2:
> In some cases the vocabulary term may have two (or more) identifiers 
> in which case they are considered semantically equivalent (ie synonyms).
> MS note: sorry, I can't get the message of this sentence: a term of 
> the ODRL vocab has its ODRL identifier, if there is an identifier for 
> the same Thing from another vocabulary then this is a sameAs or 
> skos:exactMatch relationship between the two terms/concepts/Things but 
> this not define synonyms.
>
> ·XML Encoding
>
> oSection 2:
> QCodes are similar to QNames but also allow numeric values a digit as 
> the first characters of the value.
>
> oSection 3 / 1:
> "The mandatory Policy element contains ..." vs "uid -- a 
> URI/Qname/Qcode (required)"
> MS note: if we want to express the XML Schema cardinality (1) then we 
> should use either mandatory or required but not both in a mixed way.
>
> oSection 3 / 2:
> MS note: we should state that the default cardinality is "optional" 
> (is currently the cardinality of elements and attributes without 
> "required" is unclear)
>
> oSection 3 / 3:
> Note that under the ODRL context rules (see ODRL Model [ODRL-MODEL] 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/work/2-0-xml-encoding-constraint-draft-changes/#section-References>) 
> there MUST be at least one Permission in the complete ODRL Policy, for 
> example, taking into account any Profile and Inheritance requirements.
> MS note: it should not be optional to take into account Profile and 
> Inheritance.
>
> oSection 3 / 4:
> The cardinality of the Asset element attributes MUST be either:
> MS note: this statement and lines of attribute names with required or 
> optional does not give clear guidance: why are there multiple lines 
> with different sets of attributes and each attribute has its own 
> cardinality.
> Proposed change:
> Asset element attributes MUST be used as defined by one of the sets of 
> attributes and their cardinalities below:
>
> ·JSON Encoding:
>
> oMS note: I propose it should adopt numbered sections like the other 
> spec docs
>
> oRe Approach 1:
> with the XML encoding which has a Party element and with a Role attribute.
>
> oRe Approach 2:
> MS note: I propose to copy the paragraph "*All of the URIs used in 
> ODRL XML instances MUST follow *..." from the XML Encoding document, 
> section 2, into the JSON Encoding specs.
>
> ·All docs: the copyright year should be set to 2015 (some are, some 
> not ...)
>
> ·All docs: from the previous posting I assume that you, Renato, will 
> take care of updating release/publishing date
>
> Depending on feedback from the community I would edit the proposed 
> changes.
>
> Best,
>
> Michael
>
> *Michael Steidl*
>
> Managing Director of the IPTC [mdirector@iptc.org]
>
> International Press Telecommunications Council
> Web: www.iptc.org <http://www.iptc.org/>- on Twitter @IPTC 
> <http://www.twitter.com/IPTC>
>
> Business office address:
>
> 25 Southampton Buildings, London WC2A 1AL, United Kingdom
>
> Registered in England, company no 101096
>


-- 
Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel
D3205 - Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
ETS de Ingenieros Informáticos
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Campus de Montegancedo s/n
Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, Spain
Tel. (+34) 91336 3753
Skype: vroddon3