Re: [poe] Vocab clarifications

Some extra comments:

2. (SKOS) The idea would be to homogeneize all the concept-like resources of POE are represented, solving the issues noted by @nitmws and I, articulating with the suggestion to use SKOS to handle extensions/profiles in #160
@nitmws: about skos:ConceptScheme vs skos:Collection, I think in general POE doesn't have anything that should be represented as skos:Collection Gathering concepts (whether actions or other types of resources) into ConceptSchemes should be good enough.

3. (policy properties) @vroddon the issues I have with 4.1.1 is that the description of Policy doesn't include all properties that can be applied to instances of this class, which should appear in "Properties:"

5. (scopes) The issue here is that the vocabulary introduces resources that are not defined in the Information Model. Section 3.3.2 in the old IM (https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-odrl-model-20170223/#asset-scope) said that "The scope attribute SHOULD take one of the following values: individual [...] group". The new IM is better because it replaces the SHOULD by a MAY.
And the sentent "Other scope property IRI values SHOULD be defined in the ODRL Vocabulary [vocab-odrl] " in the IM but this is quite moot. As the vocabulary is given, IRIs exist there or they do not, it's not a matter of SHOULD. And if they are I don't see why they wouldn't have been introduced in the IM. But this is probably rather an issue for the IM now!

6. ("all" and "group" scopes). You say 'all is "all", and group is "several"'. This may be fine, but it wasn't and still is not that clear in the Vocabulary doc
http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#term-Group
http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#term-All
Nor in the IM model (if just because the IM doesn't define All, as pointed in 5). Actually as of today the IM at https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#party-scope reads "The linked Permission, Duty or Prohibition is applicable to each member of that group. For example, a Permission to play a movie 5 times is valid for every Party member", which contradicts your 'all is "all", and group is "several"'.
In fact the latter sentence is also inconsistent with the Vocab doc saying 'Note that “group” scope is also assumed’ for All.


On 14/05/17 10:51, Michael Steidl wrote:
> re uses of SKOS
> My background: I'm maintaining the about 200 IPTC controlled vocabularies = concept schemes and IPTC has adopted SKOS. From that point of view:
>
> The ODRL ontology used both skos:Collection-s and skos:ConceptsScheme-s. I have to say frankly it is hard to make a clear distinction between both, I feel collections are closer to what an enumeration is in the programming context (a list of terms dedicated to a very specific use) and the concept scheme is a container of concepts - they may be used for specific purposes, but they don't have to.
>
> Actions by the WG:
>
>   * It would be great if POE/ODRL could define for what purposes skos:Collection and skos:ConceptScheme should be used.
>   * And: I'm not aware of any limitation of having a Concept only in a skos:Collection or skos:ConceptScheme - I think all Concepts should be contained by an ODRL Concept Scheme - and ODRL my have some.
>   * ODRL defines a single skosConceptScheme "actions" and claims in free text that many actions - from anonymize to compensate - are included. But there not a single skos:inScheme - which is the corresponding definition by SKOS. And using skos:isTopConcept/skos:hasTopConcept is also of great help to clarify the hierarchy. (This was already pointed at by Antoine)
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/164#issuecomment-301299155>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAnprXmWsuOEkQ-quKRgVinrun88feW7ks5r5sB7gaJpZM4NNsHV>.
>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/164#issuecomment-302468581 using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 18 May 2017 16:49:53 UTC