- From: Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 16:54:50 +0000
- To: Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>
- CC: Simon Steyskal <ssteyska@wu.ac.at>, "public-odrl@w3.org" <public-odrl@w3.org>
On 2015-Jan-21, at 13:10, Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com> wrote: > >> On 21 Jan 2015, at 19:16, Simon Steyskal <ssteyska@wu.ac.at> wrote: >> >> One thing that bothers me for quite some time now is the representation of the relationship between Policy and Asset as indicated in [1]. Assuming some kind of UML-like class diagram notation, the arc used to represent this relationship actually represents a generalization/is-a relationship [2]. I don't think, that's the intended meaning..? > > Hi Simon, that actually is the intention (that a Policy is a typeof/subclass of an Asset). > > One example for this was to enable a Duty to refer to an Asset - in the case of nextPolicy, to indicate another Policy that is itself an Asset. For what it’s worth, and it’s probably unhelpful, I find those kinds of diagrams really difficult to interpret. I don’t actually know if the ontology diagram is any better, mind (it *should* be consistent, although I don’t think it’s as expressive): http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/diagram.png M. -- Mo McRoberts - Chief Technical Architect - Archives & Digital Public Space, Zone 2.12, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA, MC3 D6, Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TQ, 0141 422 6036 (Internal: 07-311707) - PGP key CEBCF03E
Received on Wednesday, 21 January 2015 16:55:36 UTC