- From: Michael Steidl via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:53:01 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
#158 and #184 are the reasons and background for this definition. In short - the discussion in #184 shows this intention: an odrl:Policy can express many different rights related things, a subset of that is a license expression. This should be supported: ``` 1. <http://example.org/asset/9991> odrl:hasPolicy <http://example.org/policy/1341243> . 2. <http://example.org/asset/9991> dct:license <http://example.org/policy/2534545> . ``` Re 1: Policy 1341243 expresses more than just a license, e.g. the transfer of ownership (sold, given away) of asset 9991 Re 2: Policy 2534545 expresses a license for asset 9991 and nothing else (see also [Victor's Best Practice case](https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Best_Practices#3._How_to_grant_Alice_the_permission_to_use_an_asset_.28III.29)) That intention was discussed extensively but also the Director's concern that ODRL defines a super-property for an Dublin Core property is in the table. So what are the options to solve that: a/ remove `dct:license rdfs:subPropertyOf odrl:hasPolicy .` ... the semantics of hasPolicy "this asset has a Policy in which all target assets of the Rules are this asset" cannot be narrowed down to what the Rules express. b/ creating a new property named e.g. hasLicense (with semantics similar to dct:license) with `odrl:hasLicense rdfs:subPropertyOf odrl:hasPolicy .` (Formal question: is this still possible - e.g. "as advised by the Director"?) As #184 was a very long discussion @simonstey and @vroddon should share their views on that. -- GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/286#issuecomment-353002677 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2017 08:53:03 UTC