[poe] Issue: Vocab Editorial marked as Vocab

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

== Vocab Editorial ==
@aisaac


- about Figure 1
-- why does it include two ’is’ and ‘has’ arrows? These are not elements of the POE vocabulary, nor of RDFS/OWL.
-- it’s confusing to seek to represent both sub-class and part-of relation between Rule and its specialization as one arrow.
-- Profiles are not in the figure

- using the word ‘concept’ for section titles like ‘Policy concepts’ or ‘Asset concepts’ doesn’t help the reader, when there are resources in the POE model that are truly of type (SKOS) Concept and are distinct from the classes and properties listed in these ‘concepts section’.

- I think the document should present all broader/narrower relationship between SKOS concepts (e.g. Actions) in both directions. This would help readers handle sentences like in the Model’s 3.1.3 “the print Action is a subset of the use Action” (https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/#conflict) that is not reflected at https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-vocab/#term-print. I mean, the broader action of odrl:print (odrl:present) that has odrl:use as its own broader action is not even presented for odrl:print’s section.

- “Instances of UndefinedTerm describe policies for processing unsupported actions.” (https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-vocab/#undefinedConcepts). Is ‘policies’ the right word here?

- in 4.1.2 and others, some sub-properties are not mentioned as possible properties (for 4.1.2, odrl:assigner and odrl:assignee; for 4.9.1, the specializations of odrl:function). According to POE’s formal semantics, it is ok to mention only odrl:relation, as done now in 4.1.2. But for helping implementers and better reflect the information model, I think it would be useful to mention the specializations (especially the specializations of abstract properties)

- it would be better if the order of inherited properties (e.g. in 4.2.1, Agreement) would match the order in which they are given in the super-class (4.1.1, Policy)

- why is 4.7.2 (Relation) specifically in Asset concepts? Its subjects are not instances of odrl:Asset.

- in 4.10.1. Why is there a ‘must be supported’ in note? It’s not very informative. In fact it could apply to many other POE constructs, no? Also sometimes it’s ‘must’ and other times “MUST”.

See https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/166

Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2017 04:06:55 UTC