[poe] Issue: Vocab clarifications marked as Needs WG Decision

riannella has just labeled an issue for https://github.com/w3c/poe as "Needs WG Decision":

== Vocab clarifications ==

- I think it is not really helpful to have two different Actions vocabularies (one for P/O and the other one for Duties). This sort of ontological commitment can even be dangerous. Why can’t an action now earmarked for P/Os, say Distribute, be used as a Duty? One could imagine that a Party gets the permission to do things with an Asset, on the basis that this party takes care of distributing it. A bit like the copyright agreement between researchers and journal publishers, where the latter commit to employ their distribution network to promote the publish papers.
In fact, while the wording of Action definitions is very much focused on this division (e.g. “The Assigner permits/prohibits the Assignees to distribute the Asset.” at https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-vocab/#term-distribute) it is not enforced in the vocabulary by creating two distinct OWL ontologies or SKOS concept schemes. It is also not motivated (and maybe not even mentioned?) in the Information Model at https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#action. My recommendation would be to remove any hint of this distinction from the Vocabulary document (structure of sections, wording of definitions, and separate Action boxes in figure 1)

- often, the relation between POE and SKOS, wrt. the notions of ‘concepts’ and ‘vocabularies’, was not clear to me. Section 4 present a number of ‘vocabularies of applicable terms’. Some of them consist of instances of skos:Concept, some of them of instances of owl:Thing, some of them extend/refine existing POE classes by sub-classing (e.g., the Policy Types). Also, others are mentioned as concepts (Rule at https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-vocab/#term-Rule) but they’re not defined as such. Are all these different ways necessary? Is typing anything as an owl:Thing any helpful actually?
Further, when looking at the ODRL Turtle serialization, I see instances of skos:Concept (:use), instances of skos:ConceptScheme (:actions), but no skos:inScheme statement to relate them. Some groupings of concepts are defined as skos:Collection, while there could be defined as (small) ConceptScheme, like http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/#policyTypes .
Perhaps a general examination of all this is desirable. Especially if concept schemes could play a bigger role in the future (see my comment about adapting for POE the approach of Web Annotation for extending its default sets of concepts, in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-poe-comments/2017Apr/0007.html). NB: the extension pattern used by WA is applicable to OWL classes like Policy type, so I think keeping ‘vocabularies’ of subclasses of existing POE classes is ok, it’s just that they should probably be flagged as different kind of vocabularies to clarify the situation.
Finally the Turtle serialization uses skos:broaderTransitive for cases where skos:broader should probably be used. See https://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#sectransitivebroader “one can interpret skos:broader statements as explicitly asserted direct parent links, while skos:broaderTransitive is used to reflect more-general (and possibly indirect) ancestor relationships.”

- 4.1.1 target, assigner, assignee aren’t among the properties for Policy? And (as one example), in 4.8.1 odrl:target is mentioned to have only Rule as domain? The POE information model mentions that these can appear at the Policy level (https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/#composition, for example, example 6)

- about odrl:relation: in the end, is it worth having an abstract property when it has only two concrete sub-properties (odrl:output and odrl:target)? And when it has such an abstract name - and which conflicts with many general properties with similar names but an actually more generic meaning, like rdfs:property and dc:relation.

- 4.9.3 All, All2ndConnections, AllConnections and AllGroups are not defined in the information model. Then I realized that the information model itself in 3.3.2 (https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/#party-scope) is quite strange. It says “The scope attribute SHOULD take one of the following values: [individual and group]” and then “Other URI values for the scope attribute SHOULD be defined in the ODRL vocabulary [vocab-odrl] and ODRL Profiles.”, which is a bit contradictory.

- what’s the difference between odrl:All and odrl:Group?

- it seems that the various types of scopes could be arranged as a SKOS concept scheme, with skos:broader links between e.g. odrl:All2ndConnections and odrl:Group. This would better reflect your notices ‘Note that “group” scope is also assumed’.

See https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/164

Received on Friday, 23 June 2017 03:45:41 UTC