Re: [poe] inconsistent requirements wrt. profile definitions

(I guess this comes from the step-by-step progress in the understanding and specification of profile.)

I suggest:
* all the wordings have a key issue: there are the ODRL IM and the Core Vocabulary/Profile each and every ODRL Policy has to conform to ... but this may be **extended** (and not be replaced!) by using a Profile!
Therefore: a Profile has only to include terms which are not already defined by the ODRL Core IM/Vocabulary/Profile.
* [A] is the latest specification. Should be adjusted to clarify the role of a Profile as extending the ODRL Core (which is well explained in [3.1 profile purpose](, e.g.
A Policy may have none, one, or many profile property values (of type IRI [rfc3987]) to identify the ODRL Profile that this Policy conforms to **beyond the ODRL Core Vocabulary. In the case of no profile property the Policy has to conform to the ODRL Core Vocabulary.** 
* [B] needs a rewording like 
In an ODRL Policy, the profile property MAY be used to indicate the identifier(s) (IRI) of the ODRL Profile(s) the Policy conforms to beyond the ODRL Core. There may be multiple identifiers used to indicate that an ODRL Policy conforms to multiple ODRL Profiles.
* [C] is a tricky thing: in the current IM there is no clear and explicit statement like "the ODRL IM is the default profile of any ODRL Policy". Having such a statement in [A] - see above - this [C] would be quite ok. I only suggest to remove " that is the Policy only conforms to the ODRL Core Vocabulary", may cause confusion, I see real need.

(Footnote: what @simonstey has pointed at is a general problem with the IM: pieces of knowledge and specification about the same topic are spread across multiple sections. This doesn't make reading and understanding easier and it is apparently hard for the WG to make the document consistent.)

GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 28 September 2017 14:02:41 UTC