Re: [poe] whats's the rationale behind uids?

> In essence a "should" would propose:
>```json
>"@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl.jsonld",
>"@type": "Agreement",
>"uid": "http://example.com/policy:1011",
>"permission": [{
>"target": "",
>"assigner": "",
>"assignee": "",
>"action": "play"
>}]
>}
>```

no, not having a value at all is different from allowing blank nodes.

> I don't have a problem with blank nodes - but all means use them....**but the ODRL Info Model says you must uniquely identify the party/asset. Hence, the blank node requires the uid property.**

well OWL doesn't adhere to UNA anyway, cf. [4.7 Equality and Inequality of Individuals](https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/#Equality_and_Inequality_of_Individuals):
> OWL does not make the assumption that different names are names for different individuals.

```turtle
<http://example.com/policy:01> 
    a odrl:Policy ;   
    odrl:permission [
        a odrl:Permission ;
        odrl:target <http://example.com/asset:9898> ;
        odrl:action odrl:display ;
        odrl:assigner ex:Bob ;
    ] ; 
    odrl:permission [
        a odrl:Permission ;
        odrl:target <http://example.com/asset:9898> ;
        odrl:action odrl:print ;
        odrl:assignee ex:Bob2 ;
    ] .

ex:Bob owl:sameAs ex:Bob2 . 
```

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by simonstey
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/174#issuecomment-307767408 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 12 June 2017 11:52:47 UTC