Re: Help with ODRL

Hi Vincent, I looked at how to express the Asset more precisely and the versions.

The idea seems to be that the license applies to a Publishers collection of Assets that are of type schema:ScholarlyArticle
In addition, this subset of the collection can be further refined by version of the articles: jav:VoR jav:AM jav:AO

So we have to use an Asset Collection with a source URI.
Since this is an “instant” license, the ASF ODRL Profile will need to define one specific for this purpose.

Below is an example of what this may like like:

"permission":[
       {
          "action":"distribute",
          "target": {
            "@type": "AssetCollection",
            "source":  "asf:publisher-catalogue",
            "refinement": [{
              "leftOperand": "dc:type",
              "operator": "eq",
              "rightOperand": { "@id": "schema:ScholarlyArticle" }
            },
            {
               "leftOperand": "version",
               "operator": "isAnyOf",
               "rightOperand":[ {"@id":"jav:VoR"}, {"@id":"jav:AM"}, {"@id":"jav:AO"}]
             }]
          },
        }
       ]

I hope that makes sense…

Cheers - Renato


> On 13 Apr 2021, at 23:17, Renato Iannella <r@iannel.la> wrote:
> 
> Hi Vincent, we briefly discussed the below at our teleconference on Monday [1].
> 
> We want to better understand the use cases driving the JSON-LD example at [2].
> 
> Looking at the complete list of "Article Sharing Framework Policies” [3] there is clear pattern we can follow in all the table matrices.
> Policy 50 (all green) would be the best to look at as all the others should be expressible if we turn off that “bit” in the policy template.
> 
> Some questions first:
> 
> 1) The policy permits the “o:distribute” action for the target asset “schema:ScholarlyArticle”.
> a)We assume this is the set of assets that a specific Publisher has with the category of "schema:ScholarlyArticle”?
> Assuming all the constraints are met, then those assets can be distributed.
> 
> 2) There seems to be four constraints asf:platform, asf:audience, jav:journal_article_version, and asf:displayable_element
> Some of these seem to apply to the distribution, and some to the actual asset (hence, some will be expressed as odrl refinements).
> a) is the platform the system used by the publishers to distribute, or the audience to consume the asset?
> b) is asf:platform the same as o:systemDevice [4] ?
> c) is asf:audience the same as o:recipient [5]?
> d) is jav:journal_article_version the same as o:version [6]?
> 
> 3) asf:displayable_element seems less of a constraint but more like a permitted action (o:display) with 4 specific refinement (constraints)?
> 
> 4) Some feedback on the embedded JSON-LD policy at [7] (view source to see).
> a) the dc:license should not refer to the (same) policy itself
> b) there is no need for the "conflict":”prohibit” statement, as there are no prohibitions to take precedence.
> 
> 5) Is there a need to express the Assigner of the Policy (ie the publisher identifier)?
> 
> We can look at the detail of the permissions next...
> 
> Cheers - Renato
> 
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-odrl/2021Apr/0006.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-odrl/2021Apr/0006.html>
> [2] https://gitlab.com/vincentml/asf#asf-sharing-policy-generator <https://gitlab.com/vincentml/asf#asf-sharing-policy-generator>
> [3] https://vincentml.gitlab.io/asf/ <https://vincentml.gitlab.io/asf/>
> [4] https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-vocab/#term-systemDevice <https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-vocab/#term-systemDevice>
> [5] https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-vocab/#term-recipient <https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-vocab/#term-recipient>
> [6] https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-vocab/#term-version <https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-vocab/#term-version>
> [7] https://vincentml.gitlab.io/asf/policy-050-v1-0.html <https://vincentml.gitlab.io/asf/policy-050-v1-0.html>
>