Re: [poe] Role of the ODRL Common Vocabulary

re A) 
* Section 4.3 is non-normative, therefore even a must is not really relevant.
* That's why I have suggested to make a part of the Profile section 4 normative. Only in this case a must would be relevant.
* And: what does "understanding a Profile" mean? 
  * In the Policy Class section an "ODRL processor" must understand, in section 4 "an ODRL consuming system" must understand - the ODRL newbie will ask: are both the same, and what if not? 
  * I prefer to use the term "ODRL Processor" (as it would be great if also an ODRL generating system understands a Profile ;-) ) and a) add it to the Terminology section and b) use a consistent spelling (we have also uppercase Processors).
  * "understanding a Profile": I think this is like "being able interpret all classes, properties and entities as defined by the ODRL Information Model". Either use this longer explanation (my favourite) or define the term "understand" somewhere - Terminology section?

re B)
* I suggest to make the statement the other way round: The Core Vocabulary covers all things defined by the IM.
This tells: the formal reference is the IM, the Core Vocabulary is its expression by Semantic Web means.
* re "When we refer ...": sorry, I think this condition is only in the head of ODRL-oldies like us :-), ODRL newbies will not interpret the wording in this way and there is no clear statement about that anywhere. I still suggest my wording above.
* E.g. Policy Class and Profiles again: this section starts with "An ODRL Policy may be subclassed  ..." and the second sentence is the one quoted above. There is no word that the IM already defines subclasses and that they can be found in the Core Vocabulary.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/210#issuecomment-314675083 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 12 July 2017 07:07:56 UTC