Re: Another approach to the non-reification problem...

> On 3 Oct 2016, at 05:47, Renato Iannella <renato.iannella@monegraph.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 29 Sep. 2016, at 00:25, benedict.whittamsmith@thomsonreuters.com <mailto:benedict.whittamsmith@thomsonreuters.com> wrote:
>> 
>> What do you think Renato? Do others in the group have experience of using named graphs at scale?
> 
> 
> It does seem we may overcomplicate implementors if we go this way.

As I said in my original mail: indeed that is true. But that is also true, in my experience, if we go the way the Prov group did (with the 'qualified' relationships) which is  mini named graph (or reification) in disguise.

(To be clear, I am not arguing either way, just trying to put things on the table…)

> 
> [and assumes a semweb world only ;-]
> 
> If we extend the ODRL Info Model to allow a Constraint to have another Constraint, then that could address the requirement.

It would be good to have specific codes (in turtle or json-ld) for the embargo use case side by side to have a good feeling for these…

Talk to you later!

Cheers

Ivan


> 
> Renato Iannella, Monegraph
> Co-Chair, W3C Permissions & Obligations Expression (POE) Working Group
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704