- From: Renato Iannella <r@iannel.la>
- Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 21:34:26 +1000
- To: "Michael Steidl (NIT)" <mwsteidl@newsit.biz>
- Cc: public-odrl@w3.org
- Message-Id: <01297D47-8852-40CF-8CDD-A1975AF78908@iannel.la>
Hi Michael, in relation to the “But” section below, I think the disjoint rule applies only to subclasses of Rule, not to subclasses of the “golden three” classes. Cheers - Renato > On 7 Jul 2020, at 00:19, Michael Steidl (NIT) <mwsteidl@newsit.biz> wrote: > > Hi all, > I’ve edited the ODRL Profile Best Practice page as agreed at the call: > - basic approach: don’t change the ODRL Recommendation, and if required only minimal. > - people should be reminded to check if the existing Permission, Prohibition and Duty classes meet their needs > - if not: they should consider to define subclasses of Permission, Prohibition and Duty as this does not require to define a new Policy subclass > - if not, again: advise them to create new subclass(es) of Rule and a new subclass of Policy – and remind them of “one of permission, prohibition or obligation properties MUST be used”. > See the edited Note of https://w3c.github.io/odrl/profile-bp/#rule <https://w3c.github.io/odrl/profile-bp/#rule> > And of https://w3c.github.io/odrl/profile-bp/#policy <https://w3c.github.io/odrl/profile-bp/#policy> > > BUT there may be still the need to change the Recommendation: > The Profile Mechanism (https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/#profile-mechanism <https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/#profile-mechanism>) defines: > Additional Rule class: Create a subclass of the Rule class and define it as disjoint with all other Rule subclasses. > I think this “disjoint” requirement raises an issue: does creating a subclass of Permission/Prohibition/Duty (which are subclasses of Rule) require to meet this requirement?? (Formal detail: does “subclass of Rule” means only direct subclasses of Rule or also subclasses of subclasses or Rule.) > In other words: is it required to define a subclass of e.g. Permission as disjoint from Permission (I think this is formally impossible) ? > > It this “define it as disjoint” does not work I suggest to modify this requirement in the Profile Mechanism – less impact on the ODRL Recommendation than changing the Information Model or the Vocabulary. > > Would be great to hear views on that by RDF/OWL experts. > > Thanks, > Michael
Received on Friday, 4 September 2020 11:34:46 UTC