- From: Michael Steidl via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 21:50:14 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
@riannella this way: ``` { ... "action": [{ "rdf:value": { "@id": "odrl:reproduce" }, "refinement": { "uid": "http://example.com/locos/LC1" } }] ... } { "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl.jsonld", "@type": "LogicalConstraint", "uid": "http://example.com/locos/LC1", "xone": [ { "@id": "http://example.com/p:88/C1" }, { "@id": "http://example.com/p:88/C2" } ] } { "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl.jsonld", "@type": "Constraint", "uid": "http://example.com/p:88/C1", "leftOperand": "media", "operator": "eq", "rightOperand": "online" } etc ... ``` What is shown above is in fact done by any JSON-LD library in the transformation from Compacted to Expanded JSON-LD and this is a prerequisite for transforming that into N-Quads - see the lower box at https://json-ld.org/playground/ : it splits up the nested syntax into standalone graphs. As I said this is done by any Compacted to Expanded transformation, in this case the hand-made id `http://example.com/locos/LC1` is is set to a blank node id like `_:b99` by the internal processor of the transformator. If the Logical Constraint would have a uid this would be possible: * the same Logical Constraint is used by 6 Rules of a Policy * the Logical Constraint graph is defined outside the Policy graph - but inside a "Policy and other graphs"-RDF Dataset. * ... and all 6 Rules could (re-)use the Logical Constraint by a `"constraint": { "uid": "http://example.com/constraints/C100" } ` * and to make this crystal clear: a `"constraint": { @id: "http://example.com/constraints/C100" }` is semantically exactly the same - only an @id has to be used instead of uid. Therefore is strongly suggest for the sake of a consistent ODRL syntax across all classes: let's define a uid property for Locial Constraint as it is defined for the other classes. -- GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/278#issuecomment-336283610 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 12 October 2017 21:50:04 UTC