- From: Michael Steidl via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2017 16:37:59 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
I agree that the Web Architecture Extensibility provides a good outline for "how to extend a specification". But in this sense I can't get the value of "interpret the vocab term 'as is'" - what "is" in this case? How should a party interpret this received Policy (see Example 12 of the IM): ``` { "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl.jsonld", "@type": "Offer", "uid": "http://example.com/policy:1012", "permission": [{ "target": "http://example.com/music:1012", "assigner": "http://example.com/org:abc", "action": "ziplahuck" }] } ``` ... what "is" the action ziplahuck? It may be a valid identifier but an identifier does not share any semantics. And there is no must for accessing an identifier IRI and getting semantics delivered. Back to the Web Architecture Extensions: it provides two options for unknown terms * "must understand" = terms which cannot be understood are treated as an error * "must ignore" = terms which cannot be understood are ignored = the Policy is processed as if this term does not exist. Both options require that terms must be understood for a processing conforming to the specification, there is no option "treat a term which cannot be understood like a term which can be understood". I'm afraid that allowing the use of terms with unknown semantics would undermine the status of ODRL as a standard. -- GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/210#issuecomment-318913270 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 30 July 2017 16:38:00 UTC