- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:33:59 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
@nitmws, pardon me if I do not go down into the details of the mentioned issues (I was not part of those discussions). However, I am not sure I fully understand your comments above. > `1. <http://example.org/asset/9991> odrl:hasPolicy <http://example.org/policy/1341243> .` > ... > Re 1: Policy 1341243 expresses more than just a license, e.g. the transfer of ownership (sold, given away) of asset 9991 But if so, isn't this expressed by saying that if there is an `odrl:hasPolicy` relationship between two resources then this implies a `dct:license` as well? This is perfectly expressed by using the axiom: ``` odrl:hasPolicy rdfs:subPropertyOf dct:license . ``` which is _not_ vocabulary hijacking, and which what I called 'honest mistake' in my original comment. The question is then if any implementation depends on the original axiom (which would be surprising, in fact). -- GitHub Notification of comment by iherman Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/286#issuecomment-353012449 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2017 09:34:01 UTC