Re: Tweet

> On 17 May 2016, at 01:43, Emmanuel Desmontils <emmanuel.desmontils@univ-nantes.fr> wrote:
> 2. Inheritance 
> About inheritance, I have another question. I don’t understand the specification of the « inheritFrom » property. In [HTML], an example of inheritance is presented. But, it seems to me that some triples are inherited (permission, action…) but not some others (like assignee). In fact, the comment says : « Since the child policy also inherits from the parent policy, then the party http://example.com/class:IT01 <http://example.com/class:IT01> can also print the parent’s target asset. ». But <…IT01> is only declared as assignee of <…report:2333>. This question is linked to the preceding one. If policy:9999 have not more permission to declare, how to link  <…IT01> with <….report:2321> ?

We need to tighten/clarify the wording around inheritance (we did not have good use cases at the time). This noted for fixing.

> 3. Conflict
> I don’t understand the « conflict » attribute. In [HTML], an example presents it in only one license. So it seems to resolve a conflict into a given license. In this example, it says, if there is a permission and a prohibition which concerns the same action, so the permission « wins ».

The original intent was for any type of conflict (so merging and between itself).

> But in [Core], the text is « The conflict attribute is used to resolve conflicts arising from the merging of policies ». So, to merge policies, it is necessary to have at least 2 policies… In this context, if the fist one declares « odrl:conflict odrl:perm » and the other one declares « odrl:conflict odrl:prohibit », there is a conflict on « conflict » attributes! The document doesn’t explain the algorithm.

Good point! We will address that issue.

> 4. Action.
> With the property « odrl:action » all examples of [HTML] are with only one Action. Can we put more than one Action ? I think it’s possible consulting [TTL] and examples of RDFLicense.

The model was designed around one action per Permission/Prohibition. This is still the case. It may be revisited in the W3C WG process.
See the background: https://www.w3.org/2012/09/odrl/archive/odrl.net/workshop2004/paper/odrl-guth-paper.pdf <https://www.w3.org/2012/09/odrl/archive/odrl.net/workshop2004/paper/odrl-guth-paper.pdf>

> 5. DateTime vs. Duration
> In [HTML], example « Privacy Policy », the property « odrl:dateTime » has the value « P30D » with the type xsd:dateTime. It’s wrong. « P30D » is a xsd:duration. So  « odrl:dateTime » can’t be a xsd:duration regarding [HTML,TTL] (xsd:date ou xsd:dateTime). One can find the same problem presenting this property in [Voc] (it can not be a period). 
> « meteredTime » and « timeCount »  are defined as refs:Literal [TTL,HTML]… not xsd:duration ?
> In [Voc], the property « timeInterval » is presented as a period but [TTL] gives the type « rdfs:Literal ». xsd:duration is better ? 

Good find. We will address these issues.

> 6. Vocabulary 
> in [Voc], the actions are presented by categories (Action for permission or Prohibition, toward third-parties only, Duty, uses, etc.). It would be better to propose this taxonomy also in the ontology [TTL] ?

Yes, we plan to merge the Vocab and Ontology into one document (in the WG deliverable) so we will ensure the grouping is more natural.

> 7. Deprecated terms.
> Some terms « deprecated » in [Voc] are « stable » in [TTL] like writeTo or appendTo. Others are deprecated in [TTL] but not presented deprecated in [Voc] like « export », « copy », device », etc.

Yes, good catch. (Another reason why we will merge the two documents).

> 8. Profile
> In [Core] and in [HTML], section « Profile », a « ODRL Profile » is refereeing but I didn’t find any description of it.

It is simply an identifier.

> 9. About the « duty » property
> In [HTML,TTL], the « duty » property is defined with the domain « Permission ». But figure 2.1 in [Core] show that this property can be associated with an Asset. Examples in [HTML] present it in a Policy. So, the domain must be : owl:unionOf ( :Permission :Policy ) ?

The Duty has the relation property to refer to the Asset.

> 10. Permission in a Policy
> in [Core], figure 2.1, a policy may contains zero, one ore more Permissions but, in the text, you say « at least ore » .

Good point. We will address that issue.

> 11. Relation and role
> Il would be interesting that « relation »  and « role »  can link en Policy, not only a Rule. It make be possible to declare the same assignee or the same target for all rules of a Policy.


Thanks, we can look into that option

Renato Iannella, Monegraph
Co-Chair, W3C Permissions & Obligations Expression (POE) Working Group