Re: [poe] Review definition of Constraint by ODRL ontology

Comment on the implementation of the Constraint class by the ODRL 
Ontology

The basic requirement from the Information Model (IM) is: the required
 properties name (=left operand), operator and right 
operand(-reference) must be available in the Ontology.

The operator and the righOperand are defines as properties of the 
Constraint class, that is ok - but not completely, the definition of 
the semantics have changed:
- operator in the ontology: "The Boolean operator applied to a 
constraint and its operand." The IM says only "an operator function", 
nothing about Boolean. And the ontology definition says there is only 
1 operand - "its operand" - and that violates the IM - " ... with two 
operands  ..."
- rightOperand in the ontology: "The operand applied to an instance of
 a constraint." Again: only one operand, where has the second one 
gone? Further a note: "

The name (= left operand) is not defined as property of the Constraint
 class ...

... but a couple of resources of type rdf:Property are also defined as
 subPropertyOf :rightOperand: e.g.
:count rdfs:subPropertyOf :rightOperand

Based on that a first draft of a constraint with the left operand 
"count" could look like that:
```
:thisConstraint
  a odrl:Constraint;
  odrl:rightOperand "10"
  odrl:operator odrl:lteq
```
... and where to put the  "count"? The subPropertyOf allows to replace
 odrl:rightOperand by a more specific term:
```
:thisConstraint
  a odrl:Constraint;
  odrl:count "10"
  odrl:operator odrl:lteq
```
This is how all current examples look like.

But I claim the assertion that all the "Name of a Constraint" things 
are a subPropertyOf odrl:rightOperand is wrong. Why:
The example of the Cambridge Semantics shows that a subProperty is a 
property with narrower semantics than the referred property. Let's try
 that:
- ex:Mother has narrower semantics than ex:Parent: yes, that sounds 
good.
- odrl:count has narrower semantics than odrl:rightProperty: no, 

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/84#issuecomment-267575277 using your
 GitHub account

Received on Friday, 16 December 2016 11:32:05 UTC