- From: Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:41:55 +0000
- To: Simon Steyskal <ssteyska@wu.ac.at>
- CC: Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>, Public Odrl <public-odrl@w3.org>
On 2015-Jan-22, at 08:29, Simon Steyskal <ssteyska@wu.ac.at> wrote: > Hi! > >> Yes, that breaks the model, as it does not directly link the >> obligation of the Duty on performing the Permission actions. >> See the "Offer" example here as a way to express this: >> http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/#sec-example-2 > > thx, so basically "just" attaching the duty to the permissions? > > :licCC-BY-NC a odrl:Set; > odrl:permission [ > a odrl:Permission; > odrl:action odrl:reprodice; > odrl:action odrl:distribute; > odrl:action odrl:derive; > odrl:duty _:requirements > ] ; > odrl:prohibition [ > a odrl:Prohibition; > odrl:action odrl:commercialize > ] . > > _:requirements > a odrl:Duty ; > odrl:action odrl:attribute; > odrl:action odrl:attachPolicy > ] . > > ^ That would be the correct representation of the CC-BY-NC license in ODRL? That would be one way of expressing it, yes - you could express the Duty as a bnode too, of course. Note that the range of prohibition is the union of Action and Prohibition, so you can simplify the expression to: :licCC-BY-NC a odrl:Set ; odrl:permission [ a odrl:Permission ; odrl:action odrl:reproduce , odrl:distribute , odrl:derive ; odrl:duty [ a odrl:Duty ; odrl:action odrl:attribute, odrl:attachPolicy ] ] ; odrl:prohibition odrl:commercialize . 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 Thursday, 22 January 2015 09:42:37 UTC