- From: Víctor Rodríguez Doncel <vrodriguez@fi.upm.es>
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 22:43:22 +0100
- To: public-odrl@w3.org
- CC: vrodriguez@fi.upm.es
Maybe we can prepare a "ODRL Reference Card", a 1-page PDF to be printed... Víctor El 11/03/2015 a las 21:53, Antoine Isaac escribió: > Hi Renato, Stuart, > > Thanks a lot for the answers! > > Indeed the idea of "usage guidelines" would help a lot. The IPTC pages > and examples may not have the "pure RDF" syntax I was looking for. I > would have to work and turn the XML element > > <o:constraint name="http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/purpose" > operator="http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/eq" > rightOperand="http://example.com/cv/audMedia/MOBILE"/> > > into RDF statements. > But these IPTC pages and examples are a great thing. I believe I can > work based on Stuart's example. > Probably my RDF statements could be like > > aPermission odrl:constraint [ > odrl:operator odrl:eq ; > odrl:purpose ex:education > ] > > I guess ODRL might need some additional space for non-IPTC examples, > such as the wiki as Renato suggested. > I wish I could help, but I'm afraid the only thing I can offer is the > sort of discussion we're having now, and share our example data, when > we end up using ODRL. For the moment we're focusing on simple things... > > As a matter of fact, my question on labels and documentations was > maybe about even more informal types of text than NewsML-G2's "usage > terms". Just a simple name for a rights statement (as the title at > [1]), and a brief definition or scope note! > We're actually considering skos:definition and skos:scopeNote from the > SKOS ontology for the notes about the rights statement, and > skos:prefLabel or dc:title for their label. > > Cheers, > > Antoine > > [1] > https://github.com/creativecommons/license.rdf/blob/master/cc/licenserdf/licenses/creativecommons.org_publicdomain_mark_1.0_.rdf > > On 3/11/15 1:29 PM, Renato Iannella wrote: >> >>> But it is really not easy for us understand how to use ODRL, even >>> with the enhanced documentation. >> >> Hi Antoine - The current ODRL specifications are written primarily as >> normative documents - and it would be good to have a set of companion >> "usage guidelines" that explored a number of implementation scenarios. >> (we even have an Issue [1] raised for this, but looking for volunteers) >> >>> This is difficult to assess as it's unclear where profiles are >>> documented. The Common vocabulary >>> https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/vocab/2.1/ says "see also Section >>> 3 Profiles" but there's no such section anywhere. Which is rather >>> surprising to find *after* the closing of a call for comments by the >>> way. >> >> That was an editorial error, as we moved all the Profile information >> from the Vocab spec into the Model spec. >> (Now fixed) >> >>> If it is too late for you to answer such things now that you've >>> closed the call for comments, we'd understand of course. >>> If you're happy with happy with this kind of conversation, we will >>> probably come with more questions in the very near future. >> >> We can always develop additional specifications/reports to help >> implementors. >> Or even use our wiki to capture "how to" examples. >> >> >> Cheers... >> Renato Iannella >> Semantic Identity http://semanticidentity.com +61 4 1313 2206 >> Chair, W3C ODRL Community Group http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/ >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/community/odrl/track/issues/3 >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2015 21:43:52 UTC