RE: RightsML in PROF

Hi Nick,

thanks for your feedback.

 

See below my comments prefixed with [MS].

 

Seeing Renato’s agenda I guess we can dig into that at the call on Monday.

 

Best,

Michael

 

From: Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park) <Nicholas.Car@csiro.au> 
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 2:45 AM
To: Michael Steidl (NIT) <mwsteidl@newsit.biz>; 'Renato Iannella' <r@iannel.la>; public-odrl@w3.org
Cc: andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu; 'Rob Atkinson' <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Subject: Re: RightsML in PROF

 

Hi Michael,

 

Thanks for doing this since usage like this is what we need to improve PROF! Hopefully the process has been useful for you too…

Some responses to your questions:

 

* The resources of the ODRL Core profile are blank nodes, while the resources for another ODRL profile are in a corresponding namespace. Both is ok?

* Sure: the graph associations in the RDF don’t care

 

* I suggest to use dct:issued with all profile resources – e.g. in spec documents typos could be fixed and this results in a later issue date than the vocabulary

* Agreed. Our guide for ‘dataset/document type’ properties is to use whatever DCAt uses or whatever is common in your domain

 

* A big issue is the URI of an ODRL profile and versions of the profile: can a PROF profile only have single resource with the e.g. role:specification, or multiple with different hasArtifact URLs and different versions (versionInfo). 

* Multiple! There’s no restriction on Profile’s hasResource or the numbers or types of Roles of ReseourceDescriptors. I’ve used Profiles with multiple ResourceDescriptors with role Specification before
* I imagine that within a domain/system, a set of particular ResoureDescripts could be required, such as all W3C Recs having a Guidance and a Specification ResourceDescriptor, so you could profile PROF to make such constraints.

 

* Or is it required, also by ODRL considerations, to have a specific URI for each version of a profile – in this case we would need a new URI for the next version of ODRL Core.

* Clearly an ODRL choice…

[MS] Agreed. So more an ODRL-internal consideration: an ODRL Policy validation rule is that ODRL profiles define which (sub-)classes and which terms (SKOS concepts) may be used for specific ODRL properties. As a new version of an ODRL Profile may include more (permitted or prohibited) ODRL actions than the old one it is highly relevant for a proper validation to know if e.g. the RightsML 2.0 profile or the RightsML 2.1 profile is used for a Policy. Does that mean two different ODRL profile URIs must be used?

 

* Finally: an ODRL profile has this document defining it and this document may be published as web resource. But how to let people know about it – an ODRL Policy has only the ODRL profile URI. Should this document be responded when requesting the ODRL Profile URI if it is a URL?

* Can you please rephrase the question? I can’t be sure if there’s something for me/PROF here about relating instance data to the profiles they conform to or if this is purely  an ODRL matter.

 

[MS] Downgraded to simple questions: this document https://www.iptc.org/std-dev/RightsML/2.0/odrl-profile-RightsML_2.0-draft01.ttl exists. 

1. What is the role of this document in the ODRL context? 
2. Should it be used as the key resource defining a specific ODRL profile?
3. If 2. is confirmed: how to communicate and/or from where to reference this profile document?

 

> I suggest to have a quick look into this draft at the ODRL call on Monday, 6 May.

I’d like to join the call again too, if I may.

 

A couple of notes on your RDF formulation:

 

[MS] Most of the issued discussed below are based on my use of the ODRL template -  <https://github.com/w3c/odrl/blob/master/core-profile/odrl-profile-template.ttl> https://github.com/w3c/odrl/blob/master/core-profile/odrl-profile-template.ttl – therefore this in an ODRL Community issue.

 

* dct:format/dct:conformsTo

* you’ve used pairs like this:

 

    dct:format <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/html> ;

    dct:conformsTo <https://www.w3.org/TR/html/> .

 

But this adds no real value since using the HTML format implies/require conformance to HTML, the spec. Better might be something like this:

 

For the _:1 ResourceDescriptor of http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/core:

 

    dct:format <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/html> ;

    dct:conformsTo <https://www.w3.org/standards/>.

 

Ok, I haven’t found a good URI yes to describe what the HTML doc conforms to but I’m trying to indicate here it’s the specification of W3C’s Recommendation, rather than the syntactic specification of HTML which you’ve already conveyed with dct:format.

 

We will be making heavy use of things conforming to W3C Recs of course so I’d like to work out the best URI to use here for many instances.

 

* publisher

* You’ve used dct:publisher "W3C" ; & dct:publisher "IPTC - International Press Telecommunications Council" ;
* Could you perhaps use something like:

* DC: dc:publisher "W3C" ; & dct:publisher "IPTC - International Press Telecommunications Council" ;
* and DCT: dct:publisher <https://www.w3.org/> ; & dct:publisher <https://iptc.org/> ;
* Or some other, better, URI to indicate publisher with dct and the textual representation of publisher with just the dc version of the term? Just one of my small attempts to move to URIs rather than text!

 

Please feel free to describe any further roles for ResourceDescriptors if you feel you need them and we can grow the Roles vocab!

 

[MS] Going over https://www.w3.org/TR/dx-prof/#resource-roles-vocab I see no needs for more roles from the RightsML context.

 

Cheers,

 

Nick

 

 

From: "Michael Steidl (NIT)" <mwsteidl@newsit.biz <mailto:mwsteidl@newsit.biz> >
Date: Friday, 3 May 2019 at 2:57 am
To: 'Renato Iannella' <r@iannel.la <mailto:r@iannel.la> >, "public-odrl@w3.org <mailto:public-odrl@w3.org> " <public-odrl@w3.org <mailto:public-odrl@w3.org> >
Cc: Nicholas Car <Nicholas.Car@csiro.au <mailto:Nicholas.Car@csiro.au> >, "andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu <mailto:andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu> " <andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu <mailto:andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu> >, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au <mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au> >
Subject: RE: RightsML in PROF

 

Hi all,

I’ve used Renato’s ODRL Profile template -  <https://github.com/w3c/odrl/blob/master/core-profile/odrl-profile-template.ttl> https://github.com/w3c/odrl/blob/master/core-profile/odrl-profile-template.ttl - for the ODRL profile of IPTC’s RightsML 2.0.

Its draft 01 of resides at https://www.iptc.org/std-dev/RightsML/2.0/odrl-profile-RightsML_2.0-draft01.ttl

 

Working on that raised a few questions and comments:

* The resources of the ODRL Core profile are blank nodes, while the resources for another ODRL profile are in a corresponding namespace. Both is ok?
* I suggest to use dct:issued with all profile resources – e.g. in spec documents typos could be fixed and this results in a later issue date than the vocabulary
* A big issue is the URI of an ODRL profile and versions of the profile: can a PROF profile only have single resource with the e.g. role:specification, or multiple with different hasArtifact URLs and different versions (versionInfo). 
Or is it required, also by ODRL considerations, to have a specific URI for each version of a profile – in this case we would need a new URI for the next version of ODRL Core.
* Finally: an ODRL profile has this document defining it and this document may be published as web resource. But how to let people know about it – an ODRL Policy has only the ODRL profile URI. Should this document be responded when requesting the ODRL Profile URI if it is a URL?

 

I suggest to have a quick look into this draft at the ODRL call on Monday, 6 May.

 

Thanks,

Michael

 

From: Renato Iannella <r@iannel.la <mailto:r@iannel.la> > 
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 3:11 PM
To: Michael Steidl (NIT) <mwsteidl@newsit.biz <mailto:mwsteidl@newsit.biz> >
Cc: Nicholas.Car@csiro.au <mailto:Nicholas.Car@csiro.au> ; Jaroslav Pullmann <jaroslav.pullmann@fit.fraunhofer.de <mailto:jaroslav.pullmann@fit.fraunhofer.de> >; andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu <mailto:andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu> ; Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au <mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au> >
Subject: Re: RightsML in PROF

 

Sure, added 2.2

 





On 17 Apr 2019, at 22:51, Michael Steidl (NIT) <mwsteidl@newsit.biz <mailto:mwsteidl@newsit.biz> > wrote:

 

Ok, a good starting point.

 

This should be considered: versioning of profiles. 

 <http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/core> http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/core is "The ODRL Core Profile" – in fact “The ODRL 2.2 Core Profile”. I guess a next version of ODRL (2.3 or 3.0) will define additional Things and therefore “The ODRL 2.3 Core Profile” will be different from the “The ODRL 2.2 Core Profile”. Should this be expressed by different URIs of the profile?

 

(I know, IPTC has no planned versioning of RightsML Profile URIs …)

 

Best,

Michael

 

From: Renato Iannella < <mailto:r@iannel.la> r@iannel.la> 
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 2:25 PM
To: Michael Steidl (NIT) < <mailto:mwsteidl@newsit.biz> mwsteidl@newsit.biz>;  <mailto:Nicholas.Car@csiro.au> Nicholas.Car@csiro.au
Cc: Jaroslav Pullmann < <mailto:jaroslav.pullmann@fit.fraunhofer.de> jaroslav.pullmann@fit.fraunhofer.de>;  <mailto:andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu> andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu; Rob Atkinson < <mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au> rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Subject: Re: RightML in PROF

 

 






On 17 Apr 2019, at 22:15, Michael Steidl (NIT) < <mailto:mwsteidl@newsit.biz> mwsteidl@newsit.biz> wrote:

 

Is this what you, Renato, meant with “flesh it out”?

 

I created a (draft) template for describing ODRL Profiles.

 

See here:  <https://github.com/w3c/odrl/blob/master/core-profile/odrl-profile-template.ttl> https://github.com/w3c/odrl/blob/master/core-profile/odrl-profile-template.ttl

 

Renato