- From: Michael Steidl via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:56:05 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
Reminder of my main reason form suggesting strict rules regarding the use of Profile(s): it supports the receivers of Policy to know what terms may be used by it. All used terms must be defined either by the ODRL IM (Core Vocabulary) or by the Profile(s), anything else is not relevant for the evaluation of the Policy. This rule allows the receiver to build an ODRL processor based on definitions/specification and does not require to cover (best) guesses. Such a "we know what we receive" scenario will widen the acceptance of ODRL because this makes it more reliable. I suggest this basic WG decision regarding Profile: * A Policy without a Profile conforms only to the ODRL IM. * A Policy may define none to many Profiles it conforms to. (Note: it's the responsibility of the creator of a Policy to avoid contradictions by using multiple Profiles.) * Terms used by a Policy which are not defined by the IM Core Vocabulary or by a related Profile stops the evaluation of the Policy conforming to specifications. * Note: if considered as useful the Common Vocabulary could be defined as ODRL Profile, in any case the terms of the Common Vocabulary can be adopted by a Profile. (Footnote: sorry, can't join the WG call on 24 July) -- GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/210#issuecomment-317360582 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 24 July 2017 08:56:06 UTC