Profiles Best Practice - how to deal with sub-classes of Rule - open until 5 October

Hi all,

a short wrap up of this issue “how to deal with sub-classes of Rule”
brought up at our teleconference today.

 

Section 4.9 of the Profile Best Practice document
(https://w3c.github.io/odrl/profile-bp/#rule) talks about additional Rule
subclasses. It includes the NOTE (in green) with two options:

*	Option 1: create subclasses of the Permission, or Prohibition or
Duty class and use this subclass with the corresponding property of an ODRL
Policy: permission, prohibition or obligation – one of them MUST be used by
an instance of the ODRL Policy.
*	Option 2: create a subclass of Rule and use it with a new property
of an ODRL Policy – but: at least one of the properties permission,
prohibition or obligation MUST be used by an instance of the ODRL Policy.

 

On 6 July in my email to this public ODRL email list I raised this question
after editing this note:

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) ?

 

… but got no response to it so far.

 

Section 5.1 of the BP document
(https://w3c.github.io/odrl/profile-bp/#oos1) talks about “What my be
ignored and what not”.

The subsection about Rule(s) of a Policy shows two alternative texts:

* the upper one: covers the “one of permission, prohibition or obligation
MUST be used by an instance of the ODRL Policy” requirement – and this is
what Options 1 and Option 2 describe in section 4.9. (Sorry, my statement
that it covers only Option 1 at the teleconference today was wrong – I
haven’t looked at the wording for 2 months.)

* the lower one: builds on 1st level subclasses of Rule (and not on
subclasses of Permission/Prohibition/Duty), they may be applied as
alternatives to the properties permission, prohibition or obligation.

 

My conclusion of the re-reading today: the lower alternative has not been
agreed by the group at the July teleconference already – let’s remove it.
Therefore I have applied a strikethrough to this alternative text.

 

So the only open issue I see regarding “how to deal with sub-classes of
Rule” is this disjoint-issue shown above.

 

I hope this can be clarified until the next teleconference on 5 October,
frankly said I’m not an expert in applying disjoints to subclasses.

 

 

Best,

Michael

 

=============================================================

Gesendet von / sent by:

Michael W. Steidl

 <http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelwsteidl>
www.linkedin.com/in/michaelwsteidl 

Email: mwsteidl@ <http://www.newsit.biz/> newsit.biz 

1180 Wien/Vienna – Österreich/Austria