Re: Policy improvement

I fully support this.

This creates, again, alternative manners to express the same thing.
But again, I believe that if necessary, a simple script can transform  
these expressions into a "canonical form".

I guess that we can define a "canonical" representation of one policy.
And then, different syntaxes that can be algorithmically mapped to the  
canonical representation.
By having a canonical representation we can grant that (to some  
extent) policies with the same meaning can be compared and matched.  
This would be work, though, for the formalization task force, I guess.

Víctor

Renato Iannella <renato.iannella@monegraph.com> escribió:

> In many cases, the Asset (target) and Parties (assigner, assignee)  
> are the same for multiple Permissions and Prohibitions in an ODRL  
> Policy.
>
> It maybe a useful change to support the Asset/Party at the Policy  
> level, which means that these values all apply to the enclosed  
> Perms/Prohibs (and conversely means that the Perms/Prohibs do not  
> define these values).
>
> If you look at this example:  
> http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#sc-example8  
> <http://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#sc-example8>
>
> It would then look like:
> {
>     "policytype": "http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/Agreement",
>     "policyid": "http://example.com/policy:3433",
>     "conflict": "perm",
>     "target": "http://example.com/music:1234908",
>     "assigner": "http://example.com/sony:10",
>     "assignee": "http://example.com/billie:888"
>     "permissions": [{
>         "action": "http://www.w3.org/ns/odrl/2/play",
>     }],
>     "prohibitions": [{
>         "action": "http://oma.org/drm:ringtone",
>     }]
> }
>
>
> Renato Iannella, Monegraph
> Co-Chair, W3C Permissions & Obligations Expression (POE) Working Group

Received on Thursday, 8 December 2016 12:34:13 UTC