Re: [poe] Use of cardinality restrictions in the ontology?

> In any case, a user of ODRL doesn't have to be familiar with OWL or SHACL at all anyway. That's why we have our information model.

@simonstey you may be right by an academic view but from my experience with teams having to implement a standard they need a) something which shows in a strict way structures, properties and their cardinality as guideline for their serializations and b) something which checks if their instance of a serialisation complies with the specification.

(Aside: why was something like the JSON Schema created? It is far from perfect but there are development tools supporting feature a) and b) above - making developers almost happy.)

Currently ODRL provides to potential adopters:

* the Information Model document: it specifies classes and properties and should include their cardinality, but (currently) details are disputed. And it shows examples as JSON serialisation which is already a step out of an abstract definition.
* the Vocabulary document: is a human readable rendition of an also existing OWL ontology, it defines classes and properties and could define cardinality, but the ontology cannot be used for validation.
* an emerging SHACL document: it should be able to validate a graph against the Information Model.
* an XML Schema: it could be used to specify the XML serialisation of a policy instance and could be used to validate it against the schema. But the current schema has bugs and a design different from the JSON in the IM examples - #197 

Honestly, this makes it hard to encourage developers to use ODRL.

GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2017 12:04:13 UTC