- From: simon via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 08:14:43 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
> inheritRelation is a way to allow other existing business rules to be expressed (that are typically not machine readable). It was from the IPTC. There is an email thread here: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-odrl/2013Apr/0052.html thx for the pointer! I still think that inheritRelation shouldn't be part of the core language (and I'm surprised that it actually made it into ODRL in the first place). In his email, Michael even wrote: > I think the essential modification **-by a RightsML profile -** is to define that the referenced parent does not have to be an ODRL policy. Keeping this property in ODRL basically allows to not only bypass ODRL entirely: > Such terms MAY be defined in the ODRL Vocabulary [vocab-odrl] or ODRL Profiles. [...] but also requires any engine to be able to process and interpret those additional _permission actions or constraints (etc)_: > This will require the ODRL policy to be interpreted with the additional information identified by the URI. For example, this may include additional permission actions or constraints (etc) that is documented in their business model arrangement. However, having such a property in ODRL would also justify having a similar one for constraints too. I.e., we basically just point to a URI containing constraint definitions which may or may not be defined in ODRL, which in the end doesn't really matter because we require engines to be able to interpret them anyway. 😛 -- GitHub Notification of comment by simonstey Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/22#issuecomment-264397913 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 2 December 2016 08:14:50 UTC