[poe] Issue: Relation to other standard frameworks for expressing rights statements marked as Vocab

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

== Relation to other standard frameworks for expressing rights statements ==
@aisaac

3. Relation to other standard frameworks for expressing rights statements (esp. Creative Commons and DC)

Our RightsStatements.org use case raises the question between POE and other standard frameworks to represent rights/licenses. But I believe the issue goes much beyond our own case.

First, the POE pattern is centered on rights statements (which for us correspond to the POE "policy" notion). And the property that indicates the policy that applies to an asset (odrl:target) goes from the policy to the asset.
The most common pattern, and we believe the one that fits most application scenarios, is the one where links in the other direction and use properties that are usually used for representing metadata on assets, like “simple” (DC) properties. Our (rightsstatements.org) specific approach to this can be seen in the "Class for Rights Statements" and "Object Metadata Examples" at http://rightsstatements.org/files/170106requirements_for_the_technical_infrastructure_for_standardized_international_rights_statements_v1.2.pdf
It's also in the ccRel W3C submission: https://www.w3.org/Submission/ccREL/ and https://creativecommons.org/ns (using cc:license/xhtml:license)
But I guess you're already quite familiar with the pattern anyway…
Of course I’m not saying that the ODRL pattern is bad. It is fully legit, imho. But considering existing practices, I think the matter of the equivalence between patterns should be given a much more prominent place, and be ironed out to remove any doubts one could have.

As a matter of fact it seems you are aware of the problem: the RDF/OWL document refers to a correspondence between expressing rights statements with dct:license and the “official” pattern (section 5.1.1, https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-odrl-vocab-20170223/#rdfowl )
This goes in the right direction, but:
- in fact the axiom is not presented very explicitly: it is refered to as ‘this axiom’ but not spelled out
- we are not sure that dct:license is the right property (level) for such axiom. We consider dct:rights (a super-property of dct:license) to be a more appropriate level for such linking, as some policies (rights statements) are not necessarily licenses.
- I really don’t see why this is in a section introducing an ‘RDF/OWL encoding’. It is not a matter that seems specific to an OWL ontology. And in fact it doesn't seem to appear in the RDF/Turtle serialization of the ontology: http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/ODRL22.ttl . It may be better to devote a specific section of another document, or even a document of its own (maybe one that would tackling the following issue at the same time?)

Second, there are other frameworks for modeling rights, notably the Creative Commons ccRel vocabulary (NB: I’m not intending to be complete, only making comments about the ones I’m most familiar with and the most relevant for rightsstatements.org).
There used to be a sort of mapping between ODRL and ccRel: https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/work/cc/

In the new spec, the CC elements seem to be mapped to, but they are only "defined" in the 'deprecated terms' annex https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-odrl-vocab-20170223/#deprecate
In fact they appear as actions at https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-odrl-vocab-20170223/#term-Action but the hyperlink refer directly to the annex.
If these are still important actions, it would be good to list them as "real" POE vocabulary elements, even if the classes/properties are from another namespace. See the approach in DCAT's document, e.g. https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#Property:dataset_title

Also, it would be useful to revisit the mapping and see if the approach that lead to deprecation-following-mapping is consistently applied. Especially, ccRel has Attribution but POE still has a resource for it in the ODRL namespace:https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-odrl-vocab-20170223/#term-attribute

Finally, Creative Commons and others define generic rights statements and licenses that can be re-used for expressing asset-level policies. We think this can be done in POE using POE's inheritance pattern, where an asset-specific policy inherits from a more general policy (maybe an odrl:Set). This how we've understood it when writing our RightsStatements.org whitepaper http://rightsstatements.org/files/170106requirements_for_the_technical_infrastructure_for_standardized_international_rights_statements_v1.2.pdf , p17. If our representation is right, we feel there is a missed opportunity for relating POE to sets of existing policies like Creative Commons. CC examples could have been introduced in the POE information model in 3.1.5, instead of using only example.org policies.

See https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/158

Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2017 03:02:38 UTC